> It's an empty range, there is nothing illogical about it.
Yeah, this is the source of my confusion. For the "non-mathematically inclined" minds a "range of natural numbers from 0 to -4" is a contradiction in terms, but for mathematically inclined this is just an empty set. That's what you get having more Aristotle than Cantor or Leibniz. I have no other way but to readjust. Thanks for bearing with me.
