Date: Feb 5, 2013 2:40 AM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

On 5 Feb, 07:58, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.


And vice versa of course any fraction can be partitioned to anybase.