Re: An uncountable countable set

In article <1152791156.508057.8940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Virgil schrieb:


But it does not guarantee what is existing there. In order to find out
you must count.

I do not know what "axiom of infinity", 'mueckenh" is referring to , but
the ones in ZF, or ZFC or NBG guarantee existence of all of the
"naturals" ( as finite ordinals) without having to count anything.

Perhaps those naturals guaranteed by the axiom even cannot be used for
counting? They are, after all, no numbers.

Why does "mueckenh" think any natural numbers are not numbers?
.

Quantcast