> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 19:43:59 +0200
> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I  
>> hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by  
>> {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
> Let N be the biggest number in the set {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
> Exercise: does the number N+1 belongs to the set of natural numbers,  
> that is does N+1 belongs to {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}?
Not every well-ordered set has a largest member. Every well-ordered set has a 
"size" represented by an ordinal (see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number ) and there is a particular type of 
ordinal called a "limit ordinal" which has no largest member, as discussed in 
the section of that article at 
Of course this is just how it works in set theory, I think you have said you 
are some type of finitist so unlike a set theorist you may not want to "allow" 
sets with no largest member, but in this case you shouldn't even use notation 
like {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} that does not specify the largest member. I suppose 
instead you could write something like {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., N} but in this case 
you should specify what N is supposed to represent...the largest finite number 
that any human has conceived of up to the present date? The number of distinct 
physical entities in the universe (or the observable universe)? For a finitist 
what defines "largest", and can it change over time?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to