FOM: (no subject)

[Paul LEVY]

   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
   Precedence: bulk

   >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 
   A_1A_2A_3. 

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 
   practice. 

Disagree, agree.

BTW, does anyone know of a LaTeX macro to number all sections, theorems etc. using obaz?

cheers, Paul