/lit/ - Literature

>>14810940
>So we need infinitely many definitions in order to get basic arithmetic going? Are you sure?
No you just need the image definitions. All the symbol-defintions refer to one image-definition anyway. So the infinite amount is just an illusion
> Also, if you're defining 4 as 'the image of 4 things', your alleged definition includes 4 the thing you're supposed to be defining. What's the point in doing that?
So you know what 4 is. Image-definitions include the content of the symbol it is defining. Symbol-defintions do not, they attempt to use other symbols whose images you already know to define a new symbol without directly showing you