"Albrecht" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > On Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:00:24 PM UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote: >> "Albrecht" <albstorz> wrote in message >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >> >> > You confuse measuring with counting. Your other assertions are >> > arbitrary >> > and irrelevant. >> >> You are an idiot with no arguments caught on the fact. > > Your post is a confession of failure. > > If somebody claims that there are more natural numbers as the natural > numbers are able to denominate, he has to explain how this may be possible > without at least one additional element which, in consequence of that, > have to be not a natural number.
It is you who have immediately raised the tone: I don't mind too much as I can appreciate the circumstances, but please don't blame me for replying on the same tone.
That said, I was not trying to explain you anything at all, I was more or less parroting the received view (and that *was* presented reasonably explained), and rather asking you where the heck exactly is the problem: I mean, in formulae.