Thread 16692251

what fucker decided not to have 0 in n? imagine teaching 1 graders shit w/o additive identity if thats the naturals u like
0 is already in z and u know what happens when we dont want it? z\{0}

>>16692251 (OP)
[math]\mathbb{N}[/math] is not [math]\mathbb{N^{*}}[/math]
What are you talking about ?

>>16692260
thats my point. [math] \mathbb{N} [\math] is often taught as [math] \mathbb{N^{*}} [\math]

>>16692251 (OP)
>what fucker decided not to have 0 in n?
The fucker who starts counting from 1 and not 0.

>>16692275
natural numbers are not counting numbers. ur restricting youreself to situations where there is shit to count. what if i dont have anything in my bag? i say i have 0 apples, theres nothing to count. so 0 isnt a counting number but clearly appears in nature

>>16692290
>clearly appears in nature
May we see it?

>>16692314
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/
best i can do is give you a representation: 0

>>16692290
>natural numbers are not counting numbers.
according to you

>>16692251 (OP)
>imagine teaching 1 graders shit w/o additive identity
You’re working with a semigroup instead of a monoid. So?

>>16692251 (OP)
>what fucker decided not to have 0 in n?
That would be me, kiddo

>>16692251 (OP)
in every book i have ever seen 0 is included, it's just some american thing because they have redundant words like whole numbers and integers

>>16692251 (OP)
0 isnt a number libtard

>>16692251 (OP)
Nigger

>>16692251 (OP)
The default starts at 1 and always has. There's been a weird, faddish push over the last decade or so to change the default to 0. A small group of wikipedia circle-jerkers actually jerked themselves off for a few months last year and changed "1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly including 0" to "0, 1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly excluding 0." Lol
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_number#Is_0_a_natural_number?
But like all fads, it's just a sad generation of arrested development children, who didn't accomplish anything useful in life, trying to leave some graffiti on the wall before they die. In another generation, the graffiti will be washed off and there won't be any more forced confusion about the default being 1.

>>16692470
Tell me you Euler wannabe, What's the result of that :

1 - 1 =

>>16692529
What's the result of 1 - 2

>>16692522
Came here to post this

You 4chan have disappointed me

>>16692533
1 - 2 = -1

Wat's the result of 1 - 1 ?

>>16692539
0
neither are in natural number

>>16692543
>neither are in natural number
Ok, so in base 10 : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are natural numbers...
But 10, which is 9 + 1, is not a natural number because there is a 0 in it ?

>>16692546
What lol go to sesame street

>>16692551
Listen to yourself...
How do you call the "0" in the natural number "10" ?

Your're confusing [math]\mathbb{N^{*}}[/math] and [math]\mathbb{N^{0}}[/math]

>>16692559
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_value
maybe you can understand simple wiki

>>16692562
In your example, 0 is defined when no LED are lighted in the binary clock...
Are you ok ? Do you have brain damage ? Are you a retired MMA fighter ?

>>16692573
>your example
wat
>0 is defined when no LED are lighted in the binary clock
wat
yeah i'm the one with brain damage lol

>>16692577
>https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_value
What's that ?

>>16692583
means ten == zero mod ten

>>16692588
At 00:00:00 ... How do you describe it ?

>>16692251 (OP)
I usually define N to include 0.
Z+ for starting at 1.
Anything else is retarded.

>>16692590
i'd throw out the clock because it wasn't working lol. but if i was in europe maybe i'd call it midnight or 0h or zero am

>>16692600
NTA but
>never seen a 24-hour clock
>or a fucking stopwatch
how old are you?

>>16693034
i've seen both what's your point. that 0 is used in on a clock doesn't put it in N any more than "t minus ten" in a countdown puts -10 there

>>16692251 (OP)
>getting this butthurt over labels
>doesn't know about the Whole numbers
W :=NU{0}

>>16692314
crows and bees seem to know it, seems as good an argument as any to me

>>16692251 (OP)
it's purely a matter of taste whether you define N to include 0 or not.
personally, 0 is totes a natural number.

>>16692251 (OP)
Inconsequential. Only larpers care about such things. Just write N* or whatever.

>>16692384
>Peano's original formulation of the axioms used 1 instead of 0 as the "first" natural number,[9] while the axioms in Formulario mathematico include zero.[10]
very consistent of u mason

>>16693094
>op is butthurt over labels
>proceeds to give another even more contested label
almost any languages other than en use whole number for integers (numbers w/o fractional part. whole. numbers.). en is just retarded and the americans are shit for teaching this in new math