Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:15:27 +0100
On 11/3/2006 2:25 PM, Tonico wrote:
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.
Perhaps Archimedes was the first one who gave a still unrivalled
compelling description of natural numbers. However, he was definitely
not the last one of those who were ignorant of transfinite set theory.
Congratulation on your belief. Dedekind made mathiraqis a better place.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Virgil
- 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
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Tonico
- A new definition of natural numbers
- Prev by Date: Peano type theorem for parabolic DE
- Next by Date: Re: analysis with series!
- Previous by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Next by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|