FOM: (no subject)
levy at pps.jussieu.fr
Wed Feb 20 08:05:17 EST 2002
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 02 22:09:26 +0100
From: kanovei at wmwap1.math.uni-wuppertal.de (Kanovei)
Sender: owner-fom at math.psu.edu
>Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 22:11:42 +0100
From: Paul LEVY <levy at pps.jussieu.fr>
>But of course it is obaz that is mathematically more natural
[obaz = counting begins with 0 rather than with 1]
This depends on what and how you count.
One never says considet a triangle A_0A_1A_2, but always
I would say the former.
As we consider counting intervals of the time line, the
following example shows that you are wrong.
Observation: the first interval of infinite ordinals begins
with Aleph_0 and till Aleph_1, those ordinals are called
first type (or class, whatever) ordinal numbers by Cantor.
IMO, he should have called them "obaz zeroth type". He could not have omitted the "obaz" because, unfortunately, the default in English (and German, I presume despite my ignorance of it) is obao.
See the pattern: interval number n is between timepoint number
(n-1) and timepoint number n,
I would say: interval number obaz n lies between timepoint number n and timepoint number n+1.
This excellently agrees with both mathematics and social
BTW, does anyone know of a LaTeX macro to number all sections, theorems etc. using obaz?
More information about the FOM