```Date: Feb 5, 2013 7:30 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

In article <22962166-7f37-4a00-a88d-829d8c14e730@g8g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:> On 5 Feb, 09:04, 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??> > --> > You do not listen to what i say each natural (not zero) is an entity> with a range if they had no range you could not divide and make> fractions not partition. To me each natural, including zero is a number of objects that can be in a (finite) set.In my world a set can be empty, so that in my world zero is a natural number.> You can not partition zero it do not have a> range of a natural you can not count zero into the set. Natural> numbers is just sets of arranging an amount of single naturals, they> all have the same magnitude when you say 7 it is an identity for set> (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) now you can say that is (7) but the seven have> members. Each natural identity like 7 is a set of single=1 naturals> with magnitude and zero do not belong to that set.> > If you empty the set of (7) by picking out a single item there is no> object zero. And when you count in a single natural first natural> entity is 1 second 2.> > There is a language gap here for me a natural is a single 1 and 7> seven is a set of seven members with single ones. So what would like> me to call the one that make up your naturals. I guess in math 7 is a> natural, to me it is an identity used for (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) this set is> countable. The set of (7) is based on the assumption of> (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) i am not sure what mathematicians mean by an identity,> but it seem to me like 7 incorporates the hidden assumption of> 1+1+1+1+1+1+1 and thus all natural numbers except for 1 is identities.In my world (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) is a list, but not a set. In my world a list with the same thing appearing in it more than once, like your (1,1,1,1,1,1,1) cannot ever be a set. And the set of elements appearing in such a list is {1}.In my world the sets {1,2} and {2,1} are the same but the lists (1,2) and (2,1) are different.--
```