Talk:Natural number: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt (WP removed) |
imported>John Stephenson (Civilization, Pirahã...) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==New page== | |||
I just completely removed the WP import and started from scratch. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | I just completely removed the WP import and started from scratch. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Good idea. :) One thing: ''Because of their importance every civilization has developed a numeral system for representing and manipulating natural numbers, both in oral and written language...''. I think the use of "civilization" is problematic and should be changed to "technologically developed cultures have...", something like that. Finally, I would note the interesting and controversial research by Dan Everett on the Pirahã people and language. He claims there are no fixed words for numbers, which could have implications for the way they manipulate quantities cognitively. ''[http://tedlab.mit.edu/~mcfrank/papers/FEFG-cognition.pdf Cognition]'' is one reference. Most of this is rather controversial in linguistics. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:58, 19 August 2009
New page
I just completely removed the WP import and started from scratch. Peter Schmitt 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. :) One thing: Because of their importance every civilization has developed a numeral system for representing and manipulating natural numbers, both in oral and written language.... I think the use of "civilization" is problematic and should be changed to "technologically developed cultures have...", something like that. Finally, I would note the interesting and controversial research by Dan Everett on the Pirahã people and language. He claims there are no fixed words for numbers, which could have implications for the way they manipulate quantities cognitively. Cognition is one reference. Most of this is rather controversial in linguistics. John Stephenson 11:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)