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??
--