Date: Feb 6, 2013 5:39 AM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?
On 6 Feb, 09:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <e3d5f8ff-8474-405c-87a6-967366c7c...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> JT <jonas.thornv...@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.

> --

Basicly you are all in lala land, you think 7 is a point on your

numberline, when it in reality is a group of 1's a set.