On 1 Feb, 10:54, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Feb, 10:40, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Feb., 09:59, "christian.bau" <christian....@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > > > > On Feb 1, 8:51 am, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Well just my few thoughts around numbers. > > > > Go to your bathroom. > > > Count how many elephants there are. > > > How many? The answer is zero. > > > > If you watch an elephant leaving your bathroom, how many elephants are > > > in the bathroom then? > > > There were none, then one left, so now there are minus one elephants > > > in your bathroom. > > > So -1 must ve a natural number too? > > > Regards, WM > > Well honestly i never understood the distinction for me there is only > natural discrete counting entities used for counting, you can group > them in sets and partition them in bases. And then there is fractions > of naturals that you also can partition using bases, any fraction can > use the form 1/x? But when you move to bases and partition the > discrete natural you may find that values like 1/3 not possible to > give a natural representation. > But using zeroless base systems this awkward feature of the standard > number system with unfinished digit expansions is gone. > > I think it is no more then 3 lines of code to erase it forever.
As i understand it the numberline can never be a continuum unless you set a limit or range, and they will be finite. To me 0 and infinity are abstracts representing the invisible elephant without a numerical context they do exact not have magnituder nor numerical meaning.
The decimal numbers and numberline is infested with digits lacking purpose.