memes @lemmy.world weird @sub.wetshaving.social 7d ago

Big naturals is way easier to pronounce

59 comments

Actually, those are not the same. Natural numbers include zero, positive integers do not. She shoud definately use 'big naturals'.

Edit: although you could argue that it doesnt matter as 0 is arguably neither big nor large
- Natural numbers only include zero if you define it so in the beginning of your book/paper/whatever. Otherwise it's ambiguous and you should be ashamed of yourself.
  
  Fair enough, as a computer scientist I got tought to use the Neumann definition, which includes zero, unless stated differently by the author. But for general mathematics, I guess it's used both ways.
- Natural numbers include zero
  
  That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact
  
  Yeah, it's a matter of convention rather than opinion really, but among US academia the convention is to exclude 0 from the naturals. I think in France they include it.
  
  Yeah I find it easier to just accept the terminology of natural numbers and whole numbers so we have simple names for both.
- Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:
  
  (o ) ( o)
  
  Spaces and parens added for clarity
  
  (0 ) ( 0)
  You can't fool me.
  
  (o Y o) solve for Y
  
  When enclosed in parentheses I believe the correct term is "bolt-ons"
- Depends on how you draw it.
- Natural numbers include zero
  
  Only if you're French or a computer scientist or something! No one else counts from zero.
  
  There's nothing natural about zero. The famously organized and inventive Roman Empire did fine without it and it wasn't a popular concept in Europe until the early thirteenth century.
  
  If zero were natural like 1, 2, 3, 4, then all cultures would have counted from zero, but they absolutely did not.
  
  american education system moment?
- Strictly positive numbers, Z₀⁺, don't include zero. Positive numbers aka naturals, Z⁺ = N, do.
  
  Edit: this is what I've learned at school, but according to wikipedia the definitions of these vary quite a bit
Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.
I googled "Big Naturals". Result number 16 was this:
- Should've been number 1.
Gandalf's large positive integers

Like that?
- Oh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?
  
  be the change you want to see!
This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I've laughed at.
Big Naturals Are More Pronounced

ftfy
Don't get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.
- Sound made up, like imaginary numbers.
  
  I mean all numbers are made up when you think about it.
  
  Also unrelated but natural numbers are closed under multiplication (by pure coincidence) while imaginary numbers are not.
  
  This means natural numbers make worse examples when learning about sets.
I don't care if they're big, as long as they're real
- I don't care if they're real, as long as I can manipulate them
- They're Real, and they're fantastic.
- You like big figures and you cannot lie?
- Imaginary ones are useful too.
I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)
- https://youtu.be/B8dldLG_ZhI
  
  "Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained tung"
That's true OP, "big naturals" are indeed very pronounced.
Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.

In spite of that, I'm chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂
- Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers
  
  Why a subset? They're the same thing right? I guess it could be about the zero?
I just say “big’uns”
we like to see those Double negative intergers.
Why, would anyone at all think about something else?

/s
naturally
Be glad it isn't Positive Integers Venti
I like natural more as well because numbers aren’t real and claiming otherwise is just blue-balling all the nerds

59 comments