V.Sazonov at csc.liv.ac.uk
Mon Dec 20 13:20:53 EST 2004
I have NOTHING against any kind of denotation for numbers if there
is ANY reason for that. To "measure" feasibility of numbers (how big?)
the unary notation is, evidently, most adequate one.
But if someone thinks that the only numbers that exist are
> those that can be written down using hashmarks, then why not use the
> I describe instead of the unary one described by Sazonov?
By which miracle will you avoid considering what is feasible unary
(and then also binary, decimal) finite string in discussion of
feasibility? Sorry, what are you talking about? Is it about
feasibility or about what? Do not you substitute one question by
some other (I do not even understand which one)?
If you want, consider my question as about feasible strings (say,
unary ones). However, for me, identifying unary string with natural
numbers is the most natural thing.
More information about the FOM