Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0

In article <1183441649.404036.29620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3 Jul., 04:37, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1183010974.179614.181...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> WM
<mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 28 Jun., 02:35, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Depends on the definition of N you are using. Remember Bourbaki.
> > >
> > > Forget them as soon as possible.
> >
> > Why? What is wrong with their books?
>
> The declaration of 0 as a natural number.

Again, nothing more than opinion. Moreover, they are not the only ones
who do that.

If you can't see the facts supporting this opinion (discovery of 0
much later than discovery of genuine natural numbers) then further
discussion is meaningless.

"Discussion" with someone so immune to the persuasion of facts and
logic as WM is meaningless, but we can hope to prevent him spreading his
idiocies by countering them with common sense.
.

Loading