Well, you can naturally have zero of something. In fact, you have zero of most things right now.
Zero to hero
Submitted 1 week ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/aea91c9f-934e-454d-aecb-7c3fdf9bea73.jpeg
Comments
dogsoahC@lemm.ee 1 week ago
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
How do you know so much about my life?
aeronmelon@lemmy.world 1 week ago
tate@lemmy.sdf.org 1 week ago
But there are an infinite number of things that you don’t have any of, so if you count them all together the number is actually not zero (because zero times infinity is undefined).
roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 week ago
There’s a limit to the number of things unless you’re counting spatial positioning as a characteristic of things and there is not a limit to that.
whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 week ago
How do I have anything if I have nothing of something?
Almrond@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I have seen arguments for zero being countable because of some transitive property with not counting still being an option in an arbitrary set of numbers you have the ability to count too intuitively.
affiliate@lemmy.world 1 week ago
the standard (set theoretic) construction of the natural numbers starts with 0 (the empty set) and then builds up the other numbers from there. so to me it seems “natural” to include it.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
On top of that, I don’t think it’s particularly useful to have 2 different easy shorthands for the positive integers, when it means that referring to the union of the positive integers and the singleton of 0 becomes cumbersome as a result.
ns1@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Counterpoint: if you say you have a number of things, you have at least two things, so maybe 1 is not a number either. (I’m going to run away and hide now)
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 week ago
“I have a number of things and that number is 1”
assa123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I have a number of friends and that number is 0
JDubbleu@programming.dev 1 week ago
I’m willing to die on this hill with you because I find it hilarious
porl@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Another Roof has a good video on this. At some points One was considered “just” the unit, and a Number was some multiple of units.
baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 week ago
I think if you ask any mathematician (or academic that uses math professionally, for that matter), 0 is a natural number.
There is nothing natural about not having an additive identity in your semiring.
RandomVideos@programming.dev 1 week ago
In school i was taught that ℕ contained 0 and ℕ* was ℕ without 0
Faresh@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
I was taught ℕ did not contain 0 and that ℕ₀ is ℕ with 0.
Eylrid@lemmy.world 1 week ago
ℕ₀* is ℕ with 0 without 0
mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Aren’t you guys taught about a tging called whole numbers??
Breve@pawb.social 1 week ago
Other fun arguments in the same vein: Is atheism a religion? Is not playing golf a sport? For extra fun, try explaining the answers to both in a non-contradictory way.
doctordevice@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
How are those the same? You need to define “religion” and “sport” rigorously first.
Since you haven’t provided one, I’ll just use the first sentence on the wiki page:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.
“Atheism,” without being more specific, is simply the absence of a belief in a deity. It does not prescribe any required behaviors, practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctity of places or people, ethics, or organizations. The only tenuous angle is “belief,” but atheism doesn’t require a positive belief in no gods, simply the absence of a belief in any deities. Even if you are talking about strong atheism (“I believe there are no deities”), that belief is by definition not relating humanity to any supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual element. It is no more religious a belief than “avocado tastes bad.” If atheism broadly counts as a religion, then your definition of “religion” may as well be “an opinion about anything” and it loses all meaning.
If you want to talk about specific organizations such as The Satanic Temple, then those organizations do prescribe ethics, morals, worldviews, behaviors, and have “sanctified” places. Even though they still are specifically not supernatural, enough other boxes are checked that I would agree TST is a religion.
I have no idea what you’re on about with not golfing being a sport.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 1 week ago
To the golf thing:
“Is not playing a sport also a sport?”
The basic premise of the poster’s comment was:
“Is the absence of a thing, a thing in and of itself?”
Breve@pawb.social 1 week ago
How are those the same? You need to define “religion” and “sport” rigorously first.
This is really the crux of the argument. There are no absolute authorities on religion, sport, or in the case of the original post, mathematics. We can have definitions by general consensus, but they are rarely universal and thus it’s easy to cherry pick a definition that supports any particular argument with no ability to appeal to authority.
I have no idea what you’re on about with not golfing being a sport.
It’s mostly a troll argument, but you can easily trip up people with interchanging the definition of “sport” as a thing (“golf is a sport”) or an activity (“playing golf is a sport”). Then after trying to hammer down the definition more exactly, you can often poke holes in it with more questions like is chess a sport? Is playing Counter Strike a sport? Is competitive crocheting a sport? All of these ambiguities are possible because of the lack of a universal authority in the realm of sports, though some people try to pick an authority such as the Olympics to prove their point.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No to both, though atheism can be a theological philosophy.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’d argue that atheism is a feature of a belief system and that the system may or may not be a religion. There are religions that don’t feature a belief in any gods. Similarly, your personal belief system may not be a full blown religion.
l10lin@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Definition of natural numbers is the same as non-negative numbers, so of course 0 is a natural number.
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 1 week ago
In some countries, zero is neither positive nor negative. But in other, it is both positive and negative. So saying the set of natural number is the same as non-negative [integers] doesn’t really help. (Also, obviously not every would even agree that with that definition regardless of whether zero is negative.)
dovahking@lemmy.world 1 week ago
But -0 is also 0, so it can’t be natural number.
SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
0 is not a natural number. 0 is a whole number.
The set of whole numbers is the union of the set of natural numbers and 0.
randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 week ago
Does the set of whole numbers not include negatives now? I swear it used to
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
That might be integers, but I have no idea.
anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I would say that whole numbers and integers are different names for the same thing.
In german the integers are literally called ganze Zahlen meaning whole numbers.
And009@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
This is what we’ve been taught as well. 0 is a whole number, but not a natural number.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
Whole numbers are integers, integer literally means whole.
pooberbee@lemmy.ml 1 week ago
It is a natural number. Is there an argument for it not being so?
jroid8@lemmy.world 1 week ago
darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well I’m convinced. That was a surprisingly well reasoned video.
Sorse@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Thanks for linking this video! It lays out all of the facts nicely, so you can come to your own decision
kogasa@programming.dev 1 week 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
Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 1 week 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”.
pooberbee@lemmy.ml 1 week 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.
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 week ago
As a programmer, I’m ashamed to admit that the correct answer is no. If zero was natural we wouldn’t have needed 10s of thousands of years to invent it.
ramble81@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Did we need to invent it, or did it just take that long to discover it? I mean “nothing” has always been around and there’s a lot we didn’t discover till much more recently that already existed.
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 week ago
IMO we invented it, because numbers don’t real. But that’s a deeper philosophical question.
darthelmet@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Does “nothing” “exist” independent of caring what there is nothing of or in what span of time and space there is nothing of the thing?
There’s always been “something” somewhere. Well, at least as far back as we can see.
lowleveldata@programming.dev 1 week ago
As a programmer, I’d ask you to link your selected version of definition of natural number along side your request because I can’t give a fuck to guess
aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 1 week ago
I truly have no idea what you’re saying.
Allero@lemmy.today 1 week ago
Why do we even use natural numbers as a subset?
There are whole numbers already
NoFood4u@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I’m not too good at math but i think it’s because the set of integers is defined as the set that contains all natural numbers and their opposites, while the set of natural numbers is defined using the successor function (0 (or 1) is a natural number. if a number n natural, then S(n) is natural where S(n) = n+1).
Allero@lemmy.today 1 week ago
Thanks!
But if we talk whole numbers, we just change the rule that if n is whole, then S(n) is whole where S(n)=n±1.
Essentially just adding possibility for minus again.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
[deleted]Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 week ago
They’re not natural
CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’d learned somewhere along the line that Natural numbers (that is, the set ℕ) are all the positive integers and zero. Without zero, I was told this were the Whole numbers. I see on wikipedia (as I was digging up that Unicode symbol) that this is contested now. Seems very silly.
MBM@lemmings.world 1 week ago
I think whole numbers don’t really exist outside of US high schools. Never learnt about them or seen them in a book/paper at least.
reinei@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Actually “whole numbers” (at least if translated literally into German) exist outside America! However, they most absolutely (aka are defined to) contain 0. Because in Germany “whole numbers” are all negative, positive and neutral (aka 0) numbers with only an integer part (aka -N u {0} u N [no that extra 0 is not because N doesn’t contain it but just because this definition works regardless of wether you yourself count it as part of N or not]).
CodexArcanum@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I wouldn’t be surprised. I also went to school in MS and LA so being taught math poorly is the least of my educational issues. At least the Natural numbers (probably) never enslaved anyone and then claimed it was really about heritage and tradition.
RandomWalker@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Natural numbers are used commonly in mathematics across the world. Sequences are fundamental to the field of analysis, and a sequence is a function whose domain is the natural numbers.
You also need to index sets and those indices are usually natural numbers. Whether you index starting at 0 or 1 is pretty inconsistent, and you end up needing to specify whether or not you include 0 when you talk about the natural numbers.
Magnetar@feddit.de 1 week ago
But is zero a positive number?
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Weird, I learned the exact reverse. The recommended mnemonic was that the whole numbers included zero because zero has a hole in it.
NoFood4u@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
I like how whenever there’s a pedantic viral math “problem” half of the replies are just worshiping one answer blindly because that’s how their school happened to teach it.
AppleMango@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I have been taught and everyone around me accepts that Natural numbers start from 1 and Whole numbers start from 0
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 week ago
N0
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 1 week ago
N is the set of “counting numbers”.
When you count upwards you start from 1, and go up. However, when you count down you usually end on 0. Surely this means 0 satisfies the definition.
The natural numbers are derived, according to Brouwer, from our intuition of time of time by the way. From this notion, 0 is no strange idea since it marks the moment our intuition first begins ^_^
Toes@ani.social 1 week ago
Negative Zero stole my heart
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Wait, I thought everything in math is rigorously and unambiguously defined?
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Zero grew up from the seeds of the undefined, just like negative numbers and people who refuse to accept that the square root only has one value. Undefined is a pathway to many abilities some would consider unnatural.
pythonoob@programming.dev 1 week ago
Zero is a number. Need I say more?
Mio@feddit.nu 1 week ago
How about minus zero?
moon@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
How can nothing be a number
bi_tux@lemmy.world 1 week ago
zero is positive
-dev
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 1 week ago
So 0 is hard. But you know what? Tell me what none-whole number follows right after or before 0. That’s right, we don’t even have a thing to call that number.
Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
My favourite part is all the replies claiming that their answer to it is correct and it’s not at all controversial.
Which is funny because to a mathsless individual like me it proves how true the post is.
antidote101@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Just make star wars universe live action Rick and Morty but crucially WITHOUT Rick and Morty.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Science memes…
Shows a Jedi.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
expr@programming.dev 1 week ago
I just found out about this debate and it’s patently absurd. The ISO 80000-2 standard defines ℕ as including 0 and it’s foundational in basically all of mathematics and computer science. Excluding 0 is a fringe position and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
RandomWalker@lemmy.world 1 week 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.
doctordevice@lemmy.ca 1 week 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^(+).
Emmie@lemm.ee 1 week 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.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I feel so thoroughly called out RN.
gens@programming.dev 1 week ago
From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.
xkforce@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah dont do that.
kogasa@programming.dev 1 week 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.
xkforce@lemmy.world 1 week 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.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week 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.
holomorphic@lemmy.world 1 week 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.
pooberbee@lemmy.ml 1 week 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.