On Dec 12, 12:48 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <96f1f2f2-8761-42cc-a029-a215b21dd...@i1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 12 Dez., 18:51, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > A bad translation; it's not the domain that is real, but the numbers: > > > You agree that the numbers are real? But you do not agree that these > > numbers are real numbers? Remarkable. > > > > "The first number-class (I) is the set of finite integers > > > 1,2,3, ...,nu,..., > > > And you have already forgotten that finite integers are real numbers? > > The non-negative integers may well be only cardinalities, which will not > be simultaneously real numbers in any context where most real numbers > are nonsensical, such as in counting. > One cannot have pi people or any other non-natural number of people, > other than 0 if your notion of N excludes 0. > > So in counting contexts, the results of a count will always be counting > numbers, i.e., 0's or naturals, and will not be= integers, nor > rationals, nor reals or complexes, nor quaternions, nor anything else. > --
My, what an amazing insight.
What happens when there an odd number of things and each needs at least a half of some other number of whole things: Isn't that just, rounding?