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