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