Re: Cardinality question
- From: Albert Wagner <albertwagner@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 09:23:58 -0500
Matt Gutting wrote: <snip>
Since we have said we are defining what it is to be a natural number, therefore we've defined a number to be either zero or the successor of some other natural number. That's what a natural number is, according to this definition. If you have some other definition of a natural
number, you are free to use it. But you are not free to assume without
proof that your "numbers" will behave in exactly the same way as our
"numbers".
I learned to count as a toddler. I also learned that numbers don't have 'behaviour'. They simply are.
<snip>
It's [zero is] typically considered to be a natural number (intuitively), and note that we have *defined* it to be a natural number. The numbers are what we define them to be -- no less and no more.
As a toddler, I never started counting with zero. In grade school, I was taught that zero was a place holder for a number, therefore was not a number itself, but rather was an artifact of positional notation of numerals.
-- "...how an individual invents a new way of giving order to data now all assembled must here remain inscrutable and may be permanently so... Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of new paradigm have either been very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change... (they) are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them."
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: jirka
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Giuseppe Bilotta
- Re: Cardinality question
- Prev by Date: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Next by Date: Re: abundance of irrationals!)
- Previous by thread: Re: students list problem, help me...
- Next by thread: Re: Cardinality question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|