Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Which naturals better?
Replies: 41   Last Post: Feb 8, 2013 3:49 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Which naturals better?
Posted: Feb 6, 2013 3:54 AM

In article
JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Feb, 06:16, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >  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.

Actually naturals are dimensionless, though it is true that all of them,
other than 0, have magnitude.
The re
st of your nonsense I snipped.
--

Date Subject Author
2/4/13 JT
2/4/13 Virgil
2/5/13 JT
2/4/13 Frederick Williams
2/4/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 Virgil
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 Virgil
2/5/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/6/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/6/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/6/13 JT
2/7/13 Virgil
2/5/13 Virgil
2/5/13
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 Virgil
2/5/13 JT
2/5/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/6/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/6/13 JT
2/6/13 Virgil
2/7/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
2/5/13 Virgil
2/5/13
2/5/13 Frederick Williams
2/5/13 Virgil
2/7/13 HOPEINCHRIST
2/7/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
2/8/13 JT