Re: A new definition of natural numbers


On 11/6/2006 9:31 AM, Virgil wrote:
In article <454EE10F.7070506@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Perhaps Archimedes was the first one who gave a still unrivalled
compelling description of natural numbers.

Not by modern standards.

Concerning the basics of mathematics: Do we need questionable modern
standards or a comprehensively correct and as plausible as possible
logic foundation?

Judge yourself: Methods by Euclid, Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss etc.
were overly successful and will continue to do so.
Is there any need to use Cantor's transfinite set theory, any example of
useful application of aleph_2 or even more nonsensical phantasmagoria?

Eckard Blumschein

.