Date: Feb 5, 2013 3:07 AM
Author:
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?
On Feb 5, 12:04 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <35d3dbda-612a-4ce8-ba5d-935295170...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> 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??

> --