JT
Posts:
1,170
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 5:39 AM


On 6 Feb, 09:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <e3d5f8ff8474405c87a6967366c7c...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > 
Basicly you are all in lala land, you think 7 is a point on your numberline, when it in reality is a group of 1's a set.

