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.
