Date: Feb 5, 2013 11:10 PM Author: JT Subject: Re: Which naturals better? On 6 Feb, 01:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <a80c3b0f-813f-4461-b4b0-545374f10...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On 5 Feb, 09:06, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > > In article

> > > <d3216116-2862-491e-a53a-fc52a2d74...@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > 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.

>

> > > 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.

> > > --

>

> > Isn't it the members forming sets, without any member how can there be

> > a set?

>

> Given any two sets, one should have an intersection set whose mambers

> are only those in both of the given sets, so what is the intersection

> set for {1,3,5} and {2,4,6} if not an empty set?

>

> > The set is just a placeholder for numbers, it is not a mathematical

> > entity.

>

> A set is a container for whatever one wished to put in it.

>

> > Balls and buckets (bucket 1=6 balls) (bucket 2=3 balls) now i pour

> > over the three balls to the bucket 2 and we have nine balls in bucket

> > two. And you ask me what todo with the empty bucket?

>

> Do you not believe a bucket can be empty?

> --

If i pour over balls from two buckets to a third, there is really no

need to keep count upon the two empty buckets. Example 3+6+9 now we

fill last bucket with the balls of the previous according to your

definition there still will be 0+0+9. It is just moronic.