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