Date: Feb 5, 2013 1:58 AM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

On 5 Feb, 07:43, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 04:30, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 4 Feb, 11:02, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:

>
> > > JT wrote:
>
> > > > Building new natural numbers without zero using NyaN, in any base,
> > > > [...]

>
> > > You seem to confuse numbers and digits.  Both of these are true:
> > > There is a number zero.
> > > Numbers can be symbolized without the digit zero.

>
> > > --
> > > When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
> > > this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
> > > Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

>
> > No there is no zero in my list of naturals, in my list is each natural
> > number a discrete ***items***, ***entity*** with a magnitude.

>
> Sorry a single natural is a single entity or item with a certain
> magnitude, the numbers is counted in forming sets.


From this follow that a single natural have a start and end point, And
you can partition the single natural using any base.