Fair 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.

Yeah, 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.

(0 ) ( 0)
You can't fool me.

(o Y o) solve for Y

be the change you want to see!

Just write it bigger.

In mathematics, the natural numbers are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly excluding 0.[1] Some start counting with 0, defining the natural numbers as the non-negative integers 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., while others start with 1, defining them as the positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... .[a] Some authors acknowledge both definitions whenever convenient.[2] Sometimes, the whole numbers are the natural numbers as well as zero. In other cases, the whole numbers refer to all of the integers, including negative integers.[3] The counting numbers are another term for the natural numbers, particularly in primary education, and are ambiguous as well although typically start at 1.

Sauce

So it is undefined behavior, great

Zero indexed gang, yes

I 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.

Why a subset? They're the same thing right? I guess it could be about the zero?