Genady

Yes.

I think I understand now. And tend to disagree. I think that any number can be mapped onto something in the real world.

I'm trying to understand this metaphor. Maps of what?

It is off topic, but I'm curious to find out if they in fact are. I don't know though how it is measured. Why this should be the question?

Anyway, logical paradoxes are not representation. There are ways to avoid logical paradoxes, also described in your linked article. In any case, a number is independent of representation, not defined by it. Different representations can represent the same number, if their string lengths and time limits are large enough.

Yes, instead of extending the alphabet we can extend the string length boundary. We also can keep alphabet and string length boundary constant and extend the representation time boundary. All of these allows to extend the largest representable number. However, if all three are fixed, I think a largest representable number exists. If we allow for logical paradoxes to be representations, then there is a simpler way to represent any number, e.g., "The number twice as big as the largest number we thought was possible."

This constitutes an extension of the alphabet -- re:

I think that for any given alphabet, if both string length and representation time are bounded, then there exists largest representable number. If either one of them is unbounded, then the representable numbers are unbounded as well.

Thank you for the clarification. Reading this thread, I started to suspect that there is one in UK.

I think I understand the source of our miscommunication. I don't know what "to be stupid" means except for the medical situations such as dementia. I can understand what "stupid behavior" and "stupid decision" are, though. I certainly don't want to act stupidly or to make stupid decisions. I could guess that "to be stupid" means to act stupidly on average, i.e., more often stupidly than not. In this case, no, I don't want that.

OK, then what was the question?

I certainly am, from time to time.

Sorry, I don't understand your reply and/or how it relates to my earlier comment. Specifically, what does it have to do with a secrecy of the ballot and what is inversely proportional to what.

Don't English names for the numbers up to twelve indicate a use of 12-based system?

I understand that this refers to elapsed time since the Big Bang. However, I as well Also, an abstract of the article, rather than a description of its origin in the beginning, would help.

But you said, and

I did not. I did not beg, I don't pay for it now, and will not pay in any "other means." I enjoy it. A lot.

Another bit of R. Fenyman wisdom to those pretending to be deep thinkers: The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Then, your reference to Galileo's incident is BS because as you said, he was (my emphasis)

To the contrary, people ask you to show, but you just keep talking and talking and talking.

Sure. Another thread I had in mind was not on dinosaurs, but on numeral systems:

I see now. Yes, it's good. No need (for me). It's good enough.

Inspired by another ongoing thread, I imagine that if these dinosaurs were really as smart as primates but escaped the extinction, their descendants would have a heximal numerical system.

Is a use of quinary system by people known? We have a convincing explanation of its use ready.

Count me in.