JT
Posts:
436
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
> <05f802fa-5def-490d-ae31-6d2ed2e94...@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.
|
|
