JT
Posts:
432
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
> <a80c3b0f-813f-4461-b4b0-545374f10...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Feb, 09:06, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <d3216116-2862-491e-a53a-fc52a2d74...@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.
|
|
