|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> In article <1122624106.729352.43200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> > Natural numbers are based on the contradiction between ZERO and ONE.
>> > They came from nature. You begin to teach mathematics to babies by
>> > teaching the difference between having ZERO and having it all.
>>
>> You are not well informed about history. Natural numbers have been
>> existing for several thousends of years. Zero is comparatively new (far
>> less than 2000 years).
>
> IIRC, 1 was not considered a natural (counting) number by many until
> less than 2000 years ago, and even 2 was considered questionable by
> some.
That doesn't contradict a damn thing that Mueckenheim said and it
doesn't conflict with his main point either.
> So it appears that WM is no better informed about that part of history
> than those he criticizes.
Jeez Louise, Virgil. Mueckenheim says enough stupid things that
there's no reason for this. On the odd chance that what he says is
roughly right[1], then try this: wait until he opens his mouth a
second time and correct him then. (In the unlikely occurrence that he
once again fails to be stupid, repeat as necessary.)
If this gets unbearably dull (say, he has a period of remarkable
lucidity), then pass the time by collecting his old posts in a collage
of remarkable silliness[2].
Footnotes:
[1] Or doesn't contradict what Virgil knows; I'm not claiming that
Mueckenheim is correct that zero is newer than two thousand years, for
instance, since I don't know.
[2] Now that JSH has moved from Usenet to blogs, believe me: I know
what boredom means.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Well, you know as soon as you have a new number I will be happy to
add it to the list. Don't try those childish tit-for-tat games with
me." -- Ross Finlayson on Cantor's theorem.
|
|