JT
Posts:
1,343
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 2:12 AM


On 5 Feb, 07:43, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Feb, 04:30, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Feb, 11:02, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com> > > wrote: > > > > JT wrote: > > > > > Building new natural numbers without zero using NyaN, in any base, > > > > [...] > > > > You seem to confuse numbers and digits. Both of these are true: > > > There is a number zero. > > > Numbers can be symbolized without the digit zero. > > > >  > > > When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by > > > this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. > > > Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting > > > No there is no zero in my list of naturals, in my list is each natural > > number a discrete ***items***, ***entity*** with a magnitude. > > Sorry a single natural is a single entity or item with a certain > magnitude, the numbers is counted in forming sets.
base 10 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1)+(1,1,1,1) is the base form isn't all numbers but 1 identities? You just happen to knwow the concept of 7 and 4 or? In my math ()+(1,1,1,1) is not an evaluations you simply strike out the empty set.
When it comes to fractions you only need to know the numberic placeholder for precurring zeros. Base 3 1/3=,1 1/9=,(2)1 1/27=,(3)1 2/3=,2 2/9=,(2)2 2/27=,(3)2

