Re: Deep Thoughts # 7: A New Kind of Mathematics
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 06/16/04
- Next message: Igor Khavkine: "Re: Differentiating under the Integral Sign"
- Previous message: Quinn: "Re: Pure math cannot win here"
- In reply to: David Bandel: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 7: A New Kind of Mathematics"
- Next in thread: Acid Pooh: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 7: A New Kind of Mathematics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Jun 2004 04:39:12 GMT
On 14 Jun 2004 07:15:53 -0700, David Bandel <dwb1729@yahoo.com> said:
> Natural numbers were originally intended and continue to be intended
> by mathematicians to mean the "counting" numbers not including zero.
Numbers are also used to measure the "size", or cardinal, properties of
sets. In this context it is very natural to consider zero a number, as
it is a size that sets can be. (Well, one of them, anyway.)
> You hardly deal with zero in number theory.
What *are* you talking about?
> You deal with the "positive integers."
0 is a part of both formal number theory and ordinary
balance-yer-checkbook algebra.
> It's considered unfortunate that the standard is not universally
> agreed upon.
By whom?
Chris Menzel
- Next message: Igor Khavkine: "Re: Differentiating under the Integral Sign"
- Previous message: Quinn: "Re: Pure math cannot win here"
- In reply to: David Bandel: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 7: A New Kind of Mathematics"
- Next in thread: Acid Pooh: "Re: Deep Thoughts # 7: A New Kind of Mathematics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
