Date: Feb 5, 2013 3:04 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?
In article

<35d3dbda-612a-4ce8-ba5d-9352951704e8@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

JT <jonas.thornvall@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.

Zero is a perfectly good "magnitude", and in ever more set theories,

zero is a perfectly good natural number.

So how can you have an arithmetic of natural numbers which does not

allow a numeral representing the first of them??

--