JT
Posts:
432
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
> <e3d5f8ff-8474-405c-87a6-967366c7c...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
|
|
