fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Matheology § 261
Posted:
May 15, 2013 7:02 PM


On 5/15/2013 5:40 PM, AMiews wrote: > "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote in message > news:2910c29a42ce4273893a8a16e2878804@w15g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... >> On 12 Mai, 23:03, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: >> >>>>> The process by which you get any line is not independent of the prior >>>>> lines having at one time been in existence, so all those prior lines >>>>> once existed >>> >>>> But there is no difference for a line whether or not the preceding >>>> lines continue to exist. >>> >>> Once it has come into existence, its continued existence may not be >>> needed, but if it never had existed, neither could its successors. >>> >>> In a sane world the existence of 2 requires a prior existence of 1, and >>> existence of any natural n + 1 requires a prior existence of n. >> >> So 3 + 4 is 16 because the predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right? >> >> Regards, WM > > wrong, > 3 + 4 = 10 base 7 > or 3 + 4 = 11 base 6 > or 3 + 4 = 12 base 5 > > So why you say 16 ? > >
1+2+3=6 1+2+3+4=10 10+6=16
"predecessors of 3 and 4 claim their right"

