Re: Relative Cardinality



Proginoskes wrote:

> > I spoke of natural numbers.
> >
> > If you represent the natural numbets in the unal system, i.e., 3 = III
> > etc, then there are as many strokes as there are numbers. Neither gets
> > infinite without the other.
>
> But to represent a particular integer, you only need a _finite_ number
> of symbols, which was the point!

Therefore the set consisting of only "particular" integers is not
actually infinite. That is my point. Of course any natural is a
particulat natural.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast