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.