Re: A new definition of natural numbers

kunzmilan wrote:
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 numeral in a natural language (for example English).
Therefore, infinity is not a natural number, since it is from its
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


Well, Kunzmilan, I beg to differ. The binary representation of oo is 100...000. That has both a predecessor (the largest positive natural) and successor (the largest negative integer). The only thing that needs to be clarified is the exact level of uncountability in the ellipses.

But, of course, I'm the only one who would try to call oo a natural number anyway. :)

Tony
.

Quantcast