|
|
Re: Can L(<) be the language of the naturals?
Posted:
Sep 6, 2013 11:16 AM
|
|
On 09/06/2013 01:17 AM, Albrecht wrote:
> On Monday, September 2, 2013 8:19:41 AM UTC+2, Albrecht wrote:
>> Am Montag, 2. September 2013 05:11:09 UTC+2 schrieb Virgil:
>>> In article <l0023u$jol$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>> Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Your so called "natural numbers" are not the natural numbers of 99% of men. Why calling it "natural numbers" in spite of that fact?
>>
>>
>>
>> The natural numbers of normal people starts with an object or entity or sign and increases in succesive adding further objects or entities or signs step by step.
>>
>>
>>
>> E.g.:
>>
>>
Okay, you start without any strokes. A blank piece of paper,
an empty file, a clean white-board.
>>
Then you add a stroke and get a single stroke:
>> I
Then you add a stroke and get two strokes:
>> II
This all makes perfect sense to me.
--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
|
|
