|
|
Dik T. Winter schrieb:
> In article <1157836470.071804.254270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > Dik T. Winter schrieb:
> > > In article <virgil-411702.16371406092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ...
> > A set of n elements is *a number*. It need no necessarily be a latin or
> > arabic symbol.
>
> Bizarre. What number is the set of all natural numbers?
That does not exist. At least it is not described by n. III is a
representation of 3.
>
> > > I count with my fingers. Does that count?
> >
> > The positions of your fingers are numbers. And you know what to do in
> > order to get from 32 to 33.
>
> I know what is the successor of the finger positions for 32. The position
> the 32 is all fingers (including the thumb) of the right hand up and two
> fingers raised on the left hand. So I just raise the ring-finger of the
> left hand to get the next number. No addition involved at all.
> And in both cases, the set contains either seven or eight raised fingers.
If you know the positions by heart, then you need no addition actually.
You had already used it or the person who devised that technique had
used it. But earlier or later your knowing by heart will end and you
will have to count +1.
>
> > > And I can go to 35 with my
> > > fingers, and I use my feet (not toes) to extend to 143. I never really
> > > managed to do it base 2, but 4 and 128 are interesting numbers in that
> > > case.
> >
> > Every position of your fingers and feet is an expression of a number.
>
> Perhaps.
You cannot say yes?
>
> > Counting without numbers would be nonsense. A boy like Virgil may count
> > 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, ...
>
> a, b, c, d, e, f, ...
The old Greek and othe cultures have just used their letters as numbers
too.
Regards, WM
|
|