Date: Mar 22, 2013 4:18 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/22/2013 1:53 AM, WM wrote:

> On 21 Mrz., 20:14, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

>> On 3/21/2013 8:11 AM, WM wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>> But I am not interested in the set itself. Not at all! My claim is

>>> that every member of the set of lines can be removed such that no

>>> member remains, but every natural number is contained in the list.

>>

>> It would be difficult to find WM making

>> a better statement of his presumption of

>> completed infinities.

>>

>> One has the empty list.

>>

>> One has every natural number.

>>

>> WM confuses "natural number" with "representation

>> of natural number" and his intentions to make

>> such representations.

>>

>

> That is nonsense. If the natural number is different from the set of

> its representations, then one can never have, know, or use it. Then

> one has always to talk about representations of natural numbers. But

> that is silly. Therefore I have written the natural number one here

> and here 1.

You seem to have ignored the fact that there

is a conjunction in the sentence.