JT
Posts:
1,448
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 2:40 AM


On 5 Feb, 07:58, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > From this follow that a single natural have a start and end point, And > you can partition the single natural using any base.
And vice versa of course any fraction can be partitioned to anybase.

