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

In article 
<d3216116-2862-491e-a53a-fc52a2d749b4@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
JT <jonas.thornvall@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.


If one counts the members of sets to get natural numbers then counting
the members of the empty set shuld give us a natural too.
--