# Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2

*From*: "Malcolm McLean" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 25 May 2008 13:56:59 +0100

"spinoza1111" <spinoza1111@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

The contention: "we" cannot think outside the integers, and "we"> Whether

therefore define any deviant system in terms of the integers.

"we" use subscripts or "we" use repetition, "we" must still use theOne, two, three, many.

Concept of the mighty One, the mighty two, and so forth, as found in

Lotze's recursive bootstrap of the Dao de Jong:

道生一。 一生二。 二生三。 三生萬物。Dao sheng yi, yi sheng er, er sheng san, san sheng

wan wu. Tao engenders One, One engenders Two, Two engenders Three,

Three engenders the ten thousand things.

That appears to be a law of the universe. I don't think there is a way around it, even by using a base Phi number system.

--

Free games and programming goodies.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*spinoza1111

**References**:**The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*spinoza1111

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*kwikius

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*spinoza1111

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*Stephen Howe

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*spinoza1111

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*Malcolm McLean

**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2***From:*spinoza1111

- Prev by Date:
**Re: simple transport protocol** - Next by Date:
**Re: In-place algorithm** - Previous by thread:
**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2** - Next by thread:
**Re: The spinoza papers: design of the extra-precision number object 2** - Index(es):