JT
Posts:
1,200
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 12:34 AM


On 6 Feb, 06:16, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <05f802fa5def490dae316d2ed2e94...@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I do not beleive in the numberline > > it is just counted entities, but the basic distinction is that the 1's > > forming my set do have magnitudes since they are cuts. Now try cut out > > zero upon your numberline it has no magnitude > > Every true mathematician, at least from Rene de Carte onwards, has > believed in a number line and a number plane and a number space. And all > of the points on such a line, plane or space, regardless of any numbers > associated with them, "have no magnitude". > 
It is a fact that 1/3+2/3=1 so natural numbers are *NOT* dimensionless, and they do not lack magnitude. Natural numbers are counted in 7 are afterall exactly 1 bigger then 6. And that is not the 1 you may see upon the numberline, no that is the magnitude of one, and it do have a range a start and an end, because you can not divide something dimensionless, something that lack magnitude. That is the simple fact you may say i can divide 6 with 3 and they do not have any dimesions but as i said 1/3 +2/3=1 thus there is a hidden assuption about a range or a magnitude for any natural. And i showed you the the set that form these ranges 4/(1/2) = {1,1,1,1}/({1}/{1,1}) this is the underlying assumption about numbers both fractional and wholepart numbers.

