Comment on Zero to hero

pooberbee@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• jroid8@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  no it’s not

  source

  • darthelmet@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Well I’m convinced. That was a surprisingly well reasoned video.

    source
  • Sorse@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Thanks for linking this video! It lays out all of the facts nicely, so you can come to your own decision

    source
• kogasa@programming.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There can’t really be an argument either way. It’s just a matter of convention. “Natural” is just a name, it’s not meant to imply that 1 is somehow more fundamental than -1, so arguing that 0 is “natural” is beside the point

  source
• Collatz_problem@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If we add it as natural number, half of number theory, starting from fundamental theorem of arithmetics, would have to replace “all natural numbers” with “all natural numbers, except zero”.

  source

  • pooberbee@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Prime factorization starts at 2, I’m not sure what you mean. Anyway, if you wanted to exclude 0 you could say “positive integers”, it’s not that hard.

    source

    • Collatz_problem@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      1 also has a unique ‘empty’ prime factorization, while zero has none.
      You can also say “nonnegative integers”, if you want to include zero.

      source