|
|
Re: Which naturals better?
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 6:26 AM
|
|
JT 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.
>
> No there is no zero in my list of naturals, in my list is each natural
> number a discrete ***items***, ***entity*** with a magnitude.
Fairy snuff. It used to be common to define the natural numbers as
these: 1, 2, 3, ... Now 0, 1, 2, 3, ... is more common. If you prefer
the older definition I doubt that people will mind.
Zero is quite useful even if you don't want to call it a natural
number. For example, one may have no money in one's bank account. How
many pennies (cents, etc) is that? 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
|
|
