Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 3:06 AM


In article <d32161162862491ea53afc52a2d749b4@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, JT <jonas.thornvall@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.
If one counts the members of sets to get natural numbers then counting the members of the empty set shuld give us a natural too. 

