[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [more absurd]
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: [more absurd] |
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jul 2022 14:12:23 +0200 |
On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 08:46:11AM +0200, Martin Steffen wrote:
[...]
> In some sense that's defendable (that what could call natural numbers is
> a cultural question or historical, like looking at what Peano did nor
> did not define).
>
> On the other hand, one normally does not just deals with the numbers as
> such, one does something with it (like comparing them or calculating
> with them) [...]
Yes, since Uwe mentioned Peano, that's why I pointed out that
Peano doesn't care (you have to get to algebra, i.e. "up" in
the conventional foundational ladder) for 0 to have a special
role.
About the cultural thing... you seem to be a zero-counter (as
I am, too): there, too, I think that "our" position isn't in
any way "better" -- some theorems look better this way, some
that way; some inductions are easier to start at 1, some at
0.
Cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: [more absurd], (continued)
- Re: [more absurd], Uwe Brauer, 2022/07/03
- Re: [more absurd], Bruno Barbier, 2022/07/03
- Re: [more absurd], Uwe Brauer, 2022/07/03
- Re: [more absurd], tomas, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], Uwe Brauer, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], tomas, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], Martin Steffen, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], Uwe Brauer, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], tomas, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd], Uwe Brauer, 2022/07/04
- Re: [more absurd],
tomas <=
- Re: [more absurd], Martin Steffen, 2022/07/04