Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:31:49 -0700
In article <454EE10F.7070506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Not by modern standards.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- 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
- Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- A new definition of natural numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Countability of real numbers
- Next by Date: Re: Continuous injection from a subset of R^n to R
- Previous by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Next by thread: Re: A new definition of natural numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|