>mathematicians can't even agree on whether zero is a natural number
This is why no one takes you seriously, mathfags.
Mathematicians can't even agree on whether zero is a natural number
Nicholas Phillips
Other urls found in this thread:
mathworld.wolfram.com
twitter.com
Adrian Martin
If us superphyiscists managed math, it would be a lot better.
Elijah Rivera
This issue sounds ridiculous. Just put in some definition N\{0} and fuck off.
Samuel Bailey
>math
Jace Powell
Zero is not a natural number. There is no confusion
Cooper Anderson
No it isn't. Natural numbers are 1, 2, 3, ... while whole numbers are 0, 1, 2, 3, ....
Liam Campbell
mathworld.wolfram.com
>The term "natural number" refers either to a member of the set of positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... (OEIS A000027) or to the set of nonnegative integers 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (OEIS A001477; e.g., Bourbaki 1968, Halmos 1974). Regrettably, there seems to be no general agreement about whether to include 0 in the set of natural numbers.
Isaiah Murphy
I mean does it really matter? You can construct the naturals with zero or not doesn't make a difference
Elijah Bell
>directing to /x/
Ryan Johnson
I have never seen 0 included in the natural number set