Date: Feb 6, 2013 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?
JT <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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 rest 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.
Ever since Rene de Carte, every real number, including the real
naturals, has existed on a real number line.