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
86 0 ReplyNatural 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.
68 0 ReplyFair 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.
8 0 Reply
Natural numbers include zero
That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact
50 0 ReplyYeah, 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.
5 0 ReplyYeah I find it easier to just accept the terminology of natural numbers and whole numbers so we have simple names for both.
1 0 Reply
Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:
(o ) ( o)
Spaces and parens added for clarity
30 0 Reply(0 ) ( 0)
You can't fool me.20 0 Reply(o Y o) solve for Y
9 0 ReplyWhen enclosed in parentheses I believe the correct term is "bolt-ons"
1 0 Reply
Depends on how you draw it.
13 0 ReplyNatural 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.
2 0 Replyamerican education system moment?
7 0 Reply
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
1 0 Reply
I googled "Big Naturals". Result number 16 was this:
9 0 ReplyShould've been number 1.
8 0 Reply
Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.
46 0 ReplyGandalf's large positive integers
Like that?
22 0 ReplyOh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?
13 0 Replybe the change you want to see!
10 0 Reply
This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I've laughed at.
14 0 ReplyBig Naturals Are More Pronounced
ftfy
22 0 ReplyDon't get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.
18 0 ReplySound made up, like imaginary numbers.
10 0 ReplyI 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.
2 0 Reply
I don't care if they're big, as long as they're real
18 0 ReplyI don't care if they're real, as long as I can manipulate them
11 0 ReplyThey're Real, and they're fantastic.
7 0 ReplyYou like big figures and you cannot lie?
6 0 ReplyImaginary ones are useful too.
4 0 Reply
I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)
12 0 Reply"Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained tung"
3 0 Reply
That's true OP, "big naturals" are indeed very pronounced.
11 0 ReplyNatural Numbers ≠ Integers though.
In spite of that, I'm chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂
8 0 ReplyPositive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers
17 0 ReplyWhy a subset? They're the same thing right? I guess it could be about the zero?
5 0 Reply
I just say “big’uns”
7 0 ReplyWhy, would anyone at all think about something else?
/s
3 0 Replywe like to see those Double negative intergers.
5 0 Reply4 0 ReplyBe glad it isn't Positive Integers Venti
3 0 ReplyI like natural more as well because numbers aren’t real and claiming otherwise is just blue-balling all the nerds
1 0 Reply