```Date: Mar 9, 2013 4:32 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 8 Mrz., 22:57, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> In article> <ed9dbe7d-6b3b-4acc-86bc-7b8408236...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,>>>>>>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> > On 8 Mrz., 10:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:>> > > > A set of natural numbers, finite or infinite, without a first element> > > > is not object of mathematics.>> > > > > > Name the first line.>> > > > > Which first line? There are infinitely many possible first lines.> > > > > In fact EVERY line is a first line of some such set.>> > > > Name at least one line that is not obviously irrelevant for the task.>> > > Since any line can be the first line of a suitable set of lines, each> > > line is relevant, but also unnecessary.>> > Each line is relevant but also irrelevant. A nice confession.>> In order to determine whether a particular line is in a set of lines> covering |N, no line is irrelevant but neither are all all are necessary.>A nice confession of intellectual helplessness. Of course the linesfrom 1 to n are completely irrelevant. That can everybody withelementary knowledge recognize.>> > Learn: In mathematics, we have sets of natural numbers without last> > elements.>> > A set of natural numbers without a first element is not> > object of mathematics.>> The empty set is an object of mathematics even if to an object in> WMytheology.I let this stand as it is although (or because) it has nothing at allto do with the problem that every set of natural numbers, i.e. a setthat contains natural numbers, has a first element which fact Virgilobjects to.Regards, WM
```