You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
87 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
9 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I have yet to meet a single logician, american or otherwise, who would use the definition without 0.

That said, it seems to depend on the field. I think I’ve had this discussion with a friend working in analysis.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I did say mathematician, not logician.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I’m an American mathematician, and I’ve never experienced a situation where 0 being an element of the Naturals was called out. It’s less ubiquitous than I’d like it to be, but at worst they’re considered equally viable conventions of notation or else undecided.

I’ve always used N to indicate the naturals including 0, and that’s what was taught to me in my foundations class.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Of course they’re considered equally viable conventions, it’s just that one is prevalent among Americans and the other isn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This isn’t strictly true. I went to school for math in America, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a zero-exclusive definition of the natural numbers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It is true.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

I could be completely wrong, but I doubt any of my (US) professors would reference an ISO definition, and may not even know it exists. Mathematicians in my experience are far less concerned about the terminology or symbols used to describe something as long as they’re clearly defined. In fact, they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof

I feel so thoroughly called out RN. 😂

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah dont do that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

I hate those guys. I had that one prof at uni and he reinvented every possible symbol and everything was so different. It was a pita to learn from external material.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, interoperability. Like every software implementation of natural numbers that include 0.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Can I pay them to make my dick length the ISO standard?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

My experience (bachelor’s in math and physics, but I went into physics) is that if you want to be clear about including zero or not you add a subscript or superscript to specify. For non-negative integers you add a subscript zero (ℕ_0). For strictly positive natural numbers you can either do ℕ_1 or ℕ^+.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Science Memes

!science_memes@mander.xyz

Create post

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don’t throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.4K

    Posts

  • 84K

    Comments