1167
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] wellbuddyweek@lemm.ee 85 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Actually, those are not the same. Natural numbers include zero, positive integers do not. She shoud definately use 'big naturals'.

Edit: although you could argue that it doesnt matter as 0 is arguably neither big nor large

[-] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 67 points 1 year ago

Natural numbers only include zero if you define it so in the beginning of your book/paper/whatever. Otherwise it's ambiguous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[-] wellbuddyweek@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Zwiebel@feddit.org 49 points 1 year ago

Natural numbers include zero

That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact

[-] kogasa@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

positive interers with addition are not a monoid though, since the identity element of addition is 0

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] errer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:

(o ) ( o)

Spaces and parens added for clarity

[-] Jerkface@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

(o Y o) solve for Y

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] peregrin5@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago

Depends on how you draw it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Atlusb@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago

Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.

[-] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 year ago

Gandalf's large positive integers

Like that?

[-] weird@sub.wetshaving.social 13 points 1 year ago

Oh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?

[-] gay_sex@mander.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

be the change you want to see!

[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 22 points 1 year ago

Large nonnegative numbers*

[-] Tenkard@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

If they're big the zero is skipped anyway

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Just write it bigger.

[-] jxk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the comment - - I will fight for recognizing zero as a natural number

[-] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 year ago

Big Naturals Are More Pronounced

ftfy

[-] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago

I don't care if they're big, as long as they're real

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

I don't care if they're real, as long as I can manipulate them

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 1 year ago

They're Real, and they're fantastic.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You like big figures and you cannot lie?

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Imaginary ones are useful too.

[-] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 18 points 1 year ago

Don't get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.

[-] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago

Sound made up, like imaginary numbers.

[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Made me think of how everything is base 10, even octal or binary.

[-] Bosht@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I've laughed at.

[-] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 year ago

I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)

[-] Jerb322@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

https://youtu.be/B8dldLG_ZhI

"Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained tung"

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 year ago

That's true OP, "big naturals" are indeed very pronounced.

[-] regdog@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I googled "Big Naturals". Result number 16 was this:

[-] xeekei@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 year ago

Should've been number 1.

[-] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago

Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.

In spite of that, I'm chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 18 points 1 year ago

Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers

[-] ewenak@jlai.lu 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

you answered your own question

[-] ewenak@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago

Well what I learned in school was that zero was both positive and negative. I knew some people consider the natural numbers don't include zero, but I didn't know for some zero isn't even positive.

[-] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

it is neither positive nor negative

[-] deltapi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I knew a physicist who considered 0 negative if she arrived at 0 coming from negative source numbers and positive if coming from positive sources.

Something something sampling rate

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I just say “big’uns”

[-] isekaihero@ani.social 6 points 1 year ago

big badonka-donkadonks

[-] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

we like to see those Double negative intergers.

[-] kamen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Why, would anyone at all think about something else?

/s

[-] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

Be glad it isn't Positive Integers Venti

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1167 points (99.2% liked)

memes

21449 readers
3014 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS