On 01/22/2014 03:05 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > email@example.com wrote:
>> The definition of a number must allow transmitter and receiver in >> mathematical discourse, dialogue, and monologue to identify this one (1) >> number uniquely. >> >> If the question was: "How can *we* define a number?, then the answer could >> only be: "A number can be identified by a finite string of symbols taken from >> an uncountable alphabet". > > There are tribes which deal with at least small numbers but who have no > alphabets or written language, and some whose numberings are not even > expressed in words. > > So while ONE answer coud be WM's, his is not even the only answer in use.
I don't think that his is viable, because the symbols are taken from an uncountable alphabet. I'd think that the alphabet would need to be finite.
-- Michael F. Stemper Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?