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


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 11:10 PM


On 6 Feb, 01:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <a80c3b0f813f4461b4b0545374f10...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5 Feb, 09:06, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <d32161162862491ea53afc52a2d74...@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > >  > > > Isn't it the members forming sets, without any member how can there be > > a set? > > Given any two sets, one should have an intersection set whose mambers > are only those in both of the given sets, so what is the intersection > set for {1,3,5} and {2,4,6} if not an empty set? > > > The set is just a placeholder for numbers, it is not a mathematical > > entity. > > A set is a container for whatever one wished to put in it. > > > Balls and buckets (bucket 1=6 balls) (bucket 2=3 balls) now i pour > > over the three balls to the bucket 2 and we have nine balls in bucket > > two. And you ask me what todo with the empty bucket? > > Do you not believe a bucket can be empty? > 
If i pour over balls from two buckets to a third, there is really no need to keep count upon the two empty buckets. Example 3+6+9 now we fill last bucket with the balls of the previous according to your definition there still will be 0+0+9. It is just moronic.

