User talk:185.46.78.49

@JRSpriggs: did you receive my email of yesterday? If you did not, here is a copy:

Hi, I'm the user who has recently been corresponding with you on your talk page of Wikipedia.

Thank you, for all of your professional answers to me!

Since I respect you - and your professional mathematical knowledge - as well as your requests, as I did so far (despite some misunderstanding between us), I'm not going to respond on your talk page any more, because that's what you asked me to avoid doing, and I've always done my best to fulfill your requests - as you will understand soon. That said, I'm sure, once you understand I'm not guilty of the misunderstanding between us, you will let me contact you via Wikipedia, e.g. via my talk page (if you still won't want any further correspondence on your talk page), rather than via emails, which are not easy to correspond on mathematical topics.

However, If you don't want any further correspondence between us, at all, even not via my talk page, nor via emails, I will respect that of course, yet I will become very sad, because I need your help, and I respect your professional knowledge on the topic I need your help for.

As to the misunderstanding between us: Before you asked me to strike out rather than to delete, I still felt free to delete some words from what I'd written, because I thought this might clarify my original question better. However, after you asked me to use the method of striking out - when trying to clarify my previous comments, I really kept that in mind! Later, I felt I had to improve a previous comment of mine - not by deleting anything from it (because nothing had to be deleted), but rather by adding something to it, so I couldn't strike out anything, could I? An addition is not a deletion, is it? However, I still remembered your explicit request - to avoid confusion, and I wanted to respect it as far as I could, so finally I saw that the best way to do that - could be achieved - by taking two steps: First, anything I added to my old comment (after you made your request), was added in brackets; Second, I explicitly informed you about this change, including the information about my putting the addition in brackets, in order for you to find easily what was added. Unfortunately, those efforts to prevent confusion, brought about...more confusion, making you think that I ignored (as it were) your explicit request...

So, first let me apologize, from the bottom of my heart, for this confusion. Second, I hope you forgive me now, don't you? As you see, I really do my best to fulfill all of your requests, including the last one - that I avoid editing your talk page.

I can't understand what you meant when you ascribed to me: "re-defining natural number to include things which are not natural numbers". I've always thought that "natural numbers" (as opposed to "finite natural numbers"), are the elements Peano system talks about, and I don't remember I've ever tried to define them otherwise. Yet, I can understand your other comment, that you "have no interest in non-standard models", however I still wonder if the method you had described in the old thread (using moduli) is applicable for representing - the set of finite natural numbers - by a natural number, without assuming this set is identical to the set of natural numbers. Actually, this question was my original motive when I first addressed you! If you think you can't answer this question, but you still think you know someone else in Wikipedia who may probably know the answer, please let me know (e.g. on my talk page) who they are, and I will appreciate that.

Have a nice day, good luck, and all the best. 185.46.78.49 (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---