Date: Feb 6, 2013 3:54 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

In article 
<e3d5f8ff-8474-405c-87a6-967366c7cb64@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Feb, 06:16, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <05f802fa-5def-490d-ae31-6d2ed2e94...@k14g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I do not beleive in the numberline
> > > it is just counted entities, but the basic distinction is that the 1's
> > > forming my set do have magnitudes since they are cuts. Now try cut out
> > > zero upon your numberline it has no magnitude

> >
> > Every true mathematician, at least from Rene de Carte onwards, has
> > believed in a number line and a number plane and a number space. And all
> > of the points on such a line, plane or space, regardless of any numbers
> > associated with them, "have no magnitude".
> > --

>
> It is a fact that 1/3+2/3=1 so natural numbers are *NOT*
> dimensionless, and they do not lack magnitude.


Actually naturals are dimensionless, though it is true that all of them,
other than 0, have magnitude.
The re
st of your nonsense I snipped.
--