Date: Feb 7, 2013 2:57 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Which naturals better?

In article 
<3390c780-b750-4441-acd1-5ed297a8f05c@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
JT <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6 Feb, 23:07, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <58f16111-7283-48c2-b534-6b90d398e...@z9g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On 6 Feb, 09:43, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <9b29b491-b822-46c6-965e-267787e4e...@14g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,

> >
> > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 6 Feb, 06:03, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <cfd574f7-35c3-448e-a8f8-23b7a8b34...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> >
> > > > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6 Feb, 01:19, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <a80c3b0f-813f-4461-b4b0-545374f10...@dp10g2000vbb.googlegroups.
> > > > > > > > com>
> > > > > > > > ,

> >
> > > > > > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 09:06, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <d3216116-2862-491e-a53a-fc52a2d74...@r8g2000vbj.googlegroup
> > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > m>,

> >
> > > > > > > > > > JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 5 Feb, 04:30, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Feb, 11:02, Frederick Williams
> > > > > > > > > > > > <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JT wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Building new natural numbers without zero using
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > NyaN,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > base,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...]

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to confuse numbers and digits. Both of these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > true:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a number zero.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Numbers can be symbolized without the digit zero.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > him.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Diverting

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No there is no zero in my list of naturals, in my list
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > > > > natural
> > > > > > > > > > > > number a discrete ***items***, ***entity*** with a
> > > > > > > > > > > > magnitude.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sorry a single natural is a single entity or item with a
> > > > > > > > > > > certain
> > > > > > > > > > > magnitude, the numbers is counted in forming sets.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > If one counts the members of sets to get natural numbers
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > counting
> > > > > > > > > > the members of the empty set shuld give us a natural too.
> > > > > > > > > > --

> >
> > > > > > > > > Isn't it the members forming sets, without any member how can
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > a set?

> >
> > > > > > > > Given any two sets, one should have an intersection set whose
> > > > > > > > mambers
> > > > > > > > are only those in both of the given sets, so what is the
> > > > > > > > intersection
> > > > > > > > set for {1,3,5} and {2,4,6} if not an empty set?

> >
> > > > > > > > > The set is just a placeholder for numbers, it is not a
> > > > > > > > > mathematical
> > > > > > > > > entity.

> >
> > > > > > > > A set is a container for whatever one wished to put in it.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Balls and buckets (bucket 1=6 balls) (bucket 2=3 balls) now i
> > > > > > > > > pour
> > > > > > > > > over the three balls to the bucket 2 and we have nine balls
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > bucket
> > > > > > > > > two. And you ask me what todo with the empty bucket?

> >
> > > > > > > > Do you not believe a bucket can be empty?
> > > > > > > > --

> >
> > > > > > > If i pour over balls from two buckets to a third, there is really
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > need to keep count upon the two empty buckets. Example 3+6+9 now
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > fill last bucket with the balls of the previous according to your
> > > > > > > definition there still will be 0+0+9. It is just moronic.

> >
> > > > > > What you have just claimed is considerably more moronic.
> >
> > > > > > In what I regard as a reasonable world, such a shift as you
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > from 3+6+9 will result in 0+0+18, not 0+0+9
> > > > > > --

> >
> > > > > Send it to the debugger, let him look at those two zeros while he is
> > > > > on it ;D

> >
> > > > What for? do those 9 balls in you model just vanish for no reason?
> > > > --

> >
> > > No that would be in your model when you divided a number with an empty
> > > bucket.

> >
> > But in my arithmetic, as in most, one is prohibited from dividing by
> > zero, but not prohibited from having a zero.
> >
> > In standard arithmetic it turns out to be more useful to a have
> > divisions by zero prohibited but subtractions resulting in zero allowed.
> >
> > Among other things, there are places on my tax forms which require that
> > a number be subtracted from itself, resulting in zero.
> >
> > Are you sure that there are no such places on your tax forms?
> > --

>
> Why state the obvious an empty field have no value.


Because the IRS demands that one put a number on certain lines even if
that number is 0.

And the IRS that regards the emptiness of certain fields as criminal.

If you want to argue the matter, take it up with the IRS.
--