Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: David R Tribble on 2 Oct 2006 15:11 Lester Zick wrote: >> Assumptions are always trivial. So the only question is whether the >> assumption is true or false. Zero is not a natural number. If it were >> it would have been discovered long before it was. > David R Tribble wrote: >> Interesting proof you've got there: >> Since zero was not discovered until after the other natural >> numbers (ca. AD 1000), it cannot be a natural. > Lester Zick wrote: > There you go. My point exactly. So, presumably, other numbers that were discovered after AD 1000, such as googol, also cannot be naturals?
From: Lester Zick on 2 Oct 2006 17:58 On 2 Oct 2006 12:11:51 -0700, "David R Tribble" <david(a)tribble.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >>> Assumptions are always trivial. So the only question is whether the >>> assumption is true or false. Zero is not a natural number. If it were >>> it would have been discovered long before it was. >> > >David R Tribble wrote: >>> Interesting proof you've got there: >>> Since zero was not discovered until after the other natural >>> numbers (ca. AD 1000), it cannot be a natural. >> > >Lester Zick wrote: >> There you go. My point exactly. > >So, presumably, other numbers that were discovered after AD 1000, >such as googol, also cannot be naturals? Basically any multiple of 1 is a natural number. I don't know what relationship "googol" bears to one. The difficulty is the scientific basis for cardinal numerology is poorly understood. Would you be inclined to assert that the first natural ordinal is "zeroeth"?I think some suggest exactly that. But otherwise I don't see any special reason to assert the first natural cardinal is "zero". If you look at cardinal numerology in mechanical terms the difference between a thing and itself is not as "natural" as the presence or identity of the thing in itself. ~v~~
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 2 Oct 2006 17:52
"David R Tribble" <david(a)tribble.com> writes: > Lester Zick wrote: >>> Assumptions are always trivial. So the only question is whether the >>> assumption is true or false. Zero is not a natural number. If it were >>> it would have been discovered long before it was. >> > > David R Tribble wrote: >>> Interesting proof you've got there: >>> Since zero was not discovered until after the other natural >>> numbers (ca. AD 1000), it cannot be a natural. >> > > Lester Zick wrote: >> There you go. My point exactly. > > So, presumably, other numbers that were discovered after AD 1000, > such as googol, also cannot be naturals? In what sense was googol "discovered"? -- Jesse F. Hughes "That's the base tautological space where by tautological space I mean a region of truth." -- James S. Harris does philosophy of mathematics. JSH is a renaissance man. |