```Date: Feb 5, 2013 3:06 AM
Author:
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

On Feb 4, 11:12 pm, 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.>> base 10 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1)+(1,1,1,1) is the base form isn't all numbers> but 1 identities? You just happen to knwow the concept of 7 and 4 or?> In my math ()+(1,1,1,1) is not an evaluations you simply strike out> the empty set.>> When it comes to fractions you only need to know the numberic> placeholder for precurring zeros.> Base 3> 1/3=,1> 1/9=,(2)1> 1/27=,(3)1> 2/3=,2> 2/9=,(2)2> 2/27=,(3)2
```