Gandalf’s large positive integers
Like that?
Oh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?
be the change you want to see!
I googled “Big Naturals”. Result number 16 was this:
Should’ve been number 1.
Large nonnegative numbers*
If they’re big the zero is skipped anyway
Just write it bigger.
Thanks for the comment - - I will fight for recognizing zero as a natural number
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.
So it is undefined behavior, great
Yes. Some mathematicians think that 0 is natural, others don’t. So “natural number” is ambiguous.
In order to avoid ambiguity, instead of using fancy “N”, you should use fancy “N0” to refer to {0,1,2,3,4,…} and “positive integers” to refer to {1,2,3,4,…}.
Zero indexed gang, yes
If your array doesn’t start at zero I’m not sure we can be friends.
sure, but a large one?
This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I’ve laughed at.
Big Naturals Are More Pronounced
ftfy
Don’t get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.
Sound made up, like imaginary numbers.
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.
Made me think of how everything is base 10, even octal or binary.
I don’t care if they’re big, as long as they’re real
I don’t care if they’re real, as long as I can manipulate them
They’re Real, and they’re fantastic.
You like big figures and you cannot lie?
Imaginary ones are useful too.
I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)
“Anything bigger than a handful, you’re risking a sprained tung”
Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.
In spite of that, I’m chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂
Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers
Why a subset? They’re the same thing right? I guess it could be about the zero?
you answered your own question
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.
it is neither positive nor negative
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
Some places (like France) talk about positive and strictly positive, others (like England) about non-negative and positive
Identical sets are considered subsets of each other.
True
But I don’t think they would have said “a subset of” if the sets were identical.
big badonka-donkadonks
I just say “big’uns”
we like to see those Double negative intergers.
Why, would anyone at all think about something else?
/s
Be glad it isn’t Positive Integers Venti
I like natural more as well because numbers aren’t real and claiming otherwise is just blue-balling all the nerds
