Comment on Zero to hero

expr@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• RandomWalker@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I could be completely wrong, but I doubt any of my (US) professors would reference an ISO definition, and may not even know it exists. Mathematicians in my experience are far less concerned about the terminology or symbols used to describe something as long as they’re clearly defined. In fact, they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof.

  source

  • doctordevice@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    My experience (bachelor’s in math and physics, but I went into physics) is that if you want to be clear about including zero or not you add a subscript to specify. For non-negative integers you add a subscript zero (N_0). For strictly positive natural numbers you can either do N_1 or N^(+).

    source
  • Emmie@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I hate those guys. I had one prof at uni and he reinvented every possible symbol and everything was so his own. It was a pain in the ass to learn from external material.

    source
  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof

    I feel so thoroughly called out RN.

    source
  • gens@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.

    source

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Can I pay them to make my dick length the ISO standard?

      source

      • gens@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I feel they have an image to maintain, but i also feel they would sell out for enough money. So… tell me if you make it.

        source
    • expr@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Yeah, interoperability. Like every software implementation of natural numbers that include 0.

      source

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        How programmers utilize something doesn’t mean it’s the mathematical standard, idk why ISO would be a reference for this at all

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • xkforce@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Yeah dont do that.

    source
• kogasa@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Ehh, among American academic mathematicians, including 0 is the fringe position. It’s not a “debate,” it’s just a different convention. There are numerous ISO standards which would be highly unusual in American academia.

  source

  • xkforce@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The US is one of 3 countries on the planet that still stubbornly primarily uses imperial units. “The US doesn’t do it that way” isn’t a great argument for not adopting a standard.

    source
  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’m an American mathematician, and I’ve never experienced a situation where 0 being an element of the Naturals was called out. It’s less ubiquitous than I’d like it to be, but at worst they’re considered equally viable conversations of notation or else undecided.

    I’ve always used N to indicate the naturals including 0, and that’s what was taught to me in my foundations class.

    source

    • kogasa@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Of course they’re considered equally viable conventions, it’s just that one is prevalent among Americans and the other isn’t.

      source

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I think you’re using a fringe definition of the word “fringe”.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • holomorphic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I have yet to meet a single logician, american or otherwise, who would use the definition without 0.

    That said, it seems to depend on the field. I think I’ve had this discussion with a friend working in analysis.

    source

    • kogasa@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I did say mathematician, not logician.

      source

      • holomorphic@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Logicians are mathematicians. Well, most of them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • pooberbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    This isn’t strictly true. I went to school for math in America, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a zero-exclusive definition of the natural numbers.

    source

    • kogasa@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It is true.

      source