Date: Feb 6, 2013 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?
JT <email@example.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.
st of your nonsense I snipped.