Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: "Tonico" <Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Nov 2006 05:25:06 -0800
Jon Slaughter wrote:
"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?
*****************************************
Either it is april, or the above poor guy is a student of Mueck, HdB,
Georgie or any other of those cranks and/or trolls that think
themselves very smart because they're unable to understand set
theory....**sigh**....oh well.
Regards
Tonio
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: kunzmilan
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- References:
- A new definition of natural numbers
- From: kunzmilan
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Jon Slaughter
- A new definition of natural numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Elementary proof for -ve x -ve = +ve
- Next by Date: GANA DINERO POE LEER ESTE ANUNCIO!!!Y DE FORMA MUY HONESTA Y LEGAL!!!NO TIENES NADA QUE PERDER PERO SI MUCHO DINERO QUE GANAR!!
- Previous by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Next by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|