Zero to hero

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.

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

the standard (set theoretic) construction of the natural numbers starts with 0 (the empty set) and then builds up the other numbers from there. so to me it seems “natural” to include it in the set of natural numbers.

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)

I think if you ask any mathematician (or any academic that uses math professionally, for that matter), 0 is a natural number.

There is nothing natural about not having an additive identity in your semiring.

In school i was taught that ℕ contained 0 and ℕ* was ℕ without 0

Why do we even use natural numbers as a subset?

There are whole numbers already

I'd learned somewhere along the line that Natural numbers (that is, the set ℕ) are all the positive integers and zero. Without zero, I was told this were the Whole numbers. I see on wikipedia (as I was digging up that Unicode symbol) that this is contested now. Seems very silly.

I like how whenever there's a pedantic viral math "problem" half of the replies are just worshiping one answer blindly because that's how their school happened to teach it.

It is a natural number. Is there an argument for it not being so?

Definition of natural numbers is the same as non-negative numbers, so of course 0 is a natural number.

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.

I have been taught and everyone around me accepts that Natural numbers start from 1 and Whole numbers start from 0

Negative Zero stole my heart

N0

Wait, I thought everything in math is rigorously and unambiguously defined?

As a programmer, I'm ashamed to admit that the correct answer is no. If zero was natural we wouldn't have needed 10s of thousands of years to invent it.

Other fun arguments in the same vein: Is atheism a religion? Is not playing golf a sport? For extra fun, try explaining the answers to both in a non-contradictory way.

Zero grew up from the seeds of the undefined, just like negative numbers and people who refuse to accept that the square root only has one value. Undefined is a pathway to many abilities some would consider unnatural.

Zero is a number. Need I say more?

N is the set of "counting numbers".

When you count upwards you start from 1, and go up. However, when you count down you usually end on 0. Surely this means 0 satisfies the definition.

The natural numbers are derived, according to Brouwer, from our intuition of time of time by the way. From this notion, 0 is no strange idea since it marks the moment our intuition first begins ^_

How can nothing be a number

How about minus zero?

So 0 is hard. But you know what? Tell me what none-whole number follows right after or before 0. That's right, we don't even have a thing to call that number.

My favourite part is all the replies claiming that their answer to it is correct and it's not at all controversial.

Which is funny because to a mathsless individual like me it proves how true the post is.

Just make star wars universe live action Rick and Morty but crucially WITHOUT Rick and Morty.

Science memes...

Shows a Jedi.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

zero is positive

-dev