Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 6, 2013 5:00 PM


In article <2036e2a4918e4c30ab972c5559fca2d2@x15g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 rest 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.
Ever since Rene de Carte, every real number, including the real naturals, has existed on a real number line. 

