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.
I’d argue that atheism is a feature of a belief system and that the system may or may not be a religion. There are religions that don’t feature a belief in any gods. Similarly, your personal belief system may not be a full blown religion, even if you did happen to be theistic.
How are those the same? You need to define “religion” and “sport” rigorously first.
Since you haven’t provided one, I’ll just use the first sentence on the wiki page:
Religion is a range of social-cultural systems, including designated behaviors and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that generally relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, and spiritual elements.
“Atheism,” without being more specific, is simply the absence of a belief in a deity. It does not prescribe any required behaviors, practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctity of places or people, ethics, or organizations. The only tenuous angle is “belief,” but atheism doesn’t require a positive belief in no gods, simply the absence of a belief in any deities. Even if you are talking about strong atheism (“I believe there are no deities”), that belief is by definition not relating humanity to any supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual element. It is no more religious a belief than “avocado tastes bad.” If atheism broadly counts as a religion, then your definition of “religion” may as well be “an opinion about anything” and it loses all meaning.
If you want to talk about specific organizations such as The Satanic Temple, then those organizations do prescribe ethics, morals, worldviews, behaviors, and have “sanctified” places. Even though they still are specifically not supernatural, enough other boxes are checked that I would agree TST is a religion.
I have no idea what you’re on about with not golfing being a sport.
To the golf thing:
“Is not playing a sport also a sport?”
The basic premise of the poster’s comment was:
“Is the absence of a thing, a thing in and of itself?”
How are those the same? You need to define “religion” and “sport” rigorously first.
This is really the crux of the argument. There are no absolute authorities on religion, sport, or in the case of the original post, mathematics. We can have definitions by general consensus, but they are rarely universal and thus it’s easy to cherry pick a definition that supports any particular argument with no ability to appeal to authority.
I have no idea what you’re on about with not golfing being a sport.
It’s mostly a troll argument, but you can easily trip up people with interchanging the definition of “sport” as a thing (“golf is a sport”) or an activity (“playing golf is a sport”). Then after trying to hammer down the definition more exactly, you can often poke holes in it with more questions like is chess a sport? Is playing Counter Strike a sport? Is competitive crocheting a sport? All of these ambiguities are possible because of the lack of a universal authority in the realm of sports, though some people try to pick an authority such as the Olympics to prove their point.
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.
Did we need to invent it, or did it just take that long to discover it? I mean “nothing” has always been around and there’s a lot we didn’t discover till much more recently that already existed.
As a programmer, I’d ask you to link your selected version of definition of natural number along with your request because I can’t give a fuck to guess
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.
Does the set of whole numbers not include negatives now? I swear it used to do
Integer == whole
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course they’re considered equally viable conventions, it’s just that one is prevalent among Americans and the other isn’t.
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.
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.
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^+.
From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.
Yeah, interoperability. Like every software implementation of natural numbers that include 0.
