In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 June 2013 22:18:45 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > > Your regurgitation is not simply general, it altogether misses the > > > point. > > > Sorry, what was the point? > > If you start counting from 1, you cannot have X numbers without a number X in > the ordinals.
Some people, though clearly not WM, can count by twos or threes and even larger steps. By twos one can go 2, 4, 6 having 3 numbers without a number 3. --