• dogsoahC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well, you can naturally have zero of something. In fact, you have zero of most things right now.

  • expr@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months 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.

      FWIW I was taught that the inclusion of 0 is a French tradition.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months 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.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            An English dictionary is not really going to tell you what mathematicians are doing. Like, its goal is to describe what the word “integer” means (in various contexts), it won’t tell you what the “integer series” is.

            https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/138633/what-are-the-whole-numbers

            The gist I see is that it’s kind of ambiguous whether the whole number series includes negatives or not, and in higher math you won’t see the term without a strict definition. It’s much more likely you’d see “non-negative integers” or the like.

            • Monstera@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              wdym, you know what integers are called in latin languages? “inteiros” (pt), literally “whole”. everyone that does higher math (me included) uses it and understands it for what it is: numbers that are not fractions/irationals.

              Just cause there exists an English hegemony and your language is ill defined and confused with your multiple words for a single concept, that doesn’t mean you get to muddy the waters, rename something in maths, and make a mountain out of a mole hill. Integers include negatives and zero, saying whole numbers and integers is the same, no room for debate

              now excuse me while i go touch some grass

  • ns1@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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)