🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BuBCCp.6wJ@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep8.204819.316@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>|> 
>|> 
>|> Please note that the existence of the set of all natural numbers is
>                                         ^^^
>|> sanctioned by one of the Fathers of the Church.  Note the use of
>
>This is not obvious.  I am suspicious of the translation, you clever
>promulgator of Platonism.
>
>|> Every number is defined by its own unique character, so that no number
>|> is equal to any other.  They are all unequal to one another and
>|> different, and the individual numbers are finite, but as a class they
>                                                              ^^^^^
>Class?  Do you have the Latin here?
>
>|> Never let us doubt, then, that every number is known to him 'whose
>|> understanding cannot be numbered'.  Although the infinite series of
>
>Of course, this doesn't require there to be a set of same.
>-- 
>Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm

St. Augustine does not refer directly to the existence of the set of
natural numbers, but refer to the last paragraph of the quote, which
you did not include, where he points out that the infinity of natural
numbers is "finite" to God.  This certainly seems to support the
existence of "omega".
-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu