JT
Posts:
436
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
|
|
