Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:12:06 GMT
"kunzmilan" <kunzmilan@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1162543882.937839.226090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Many long discussions in this group lead to the conclusion, that it is
necessary to define anew what is a natural number. I propose this:
A natural number is a number which has its own name in form of a numeralTherefore, infinity is not a natural number, since it is from its
in a natural language (for example English).
nature indefinite, as numerals some or many are.
It can be discussed, if mathematical expressions for large numbers
belong to natural languages or or if they form an artificial language,
as Esperanto or computer languages are.
Physicists must precise in next hundreds years the definition of the
Avogadro number. Otherwise, it can not keep its status of the natural
number.
kunzmilan
Is it April already?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Tonico
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- References:
- A new definition of natural numbers
- From: kunzmilan
- A new definition of natural numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Functions of a block "reverse-diagonal" matrix.
- Next by Date: Re: Irrationals and nowhere dense
- Previous by thread: A new definition of natural numbers
- Next by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|