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
Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:
(o ) ( o)
Spaces and parens added for clarity
(o Y o) solve for Y
When enclosed in parentheses I believe the correct term is “bolt-ons”
(0 ) ( 0)
You can’t fool me.
Natural numbers include zero
Only if you’re French or a computer scientist or something! No one else counts from zero.
There’s nothing natural about zero. The famously organized and inventive Roman Empire did fine without it and it wasn’t a popular concept in Europe until the early thirteenth century.
If zero were natural like 1, 2, 3, 4, then all cultures would have counted from zero, but they absolutely did not.
american education system moment?
I think round the world, children and adults start counting from 1. It’s only natural!
I think about this in terms can I have of something (indivisible), and sure enough I can have 0 apples (yeah, yeah, divisible), bruises, grains of sand in my pocket
I think you’re trying to explain to me what zero means while I’m trying to explain that it’s not where numbers numbers start of from. It’s where array offsets start (but making humans make that distinction instead of compilers is on obvious own goal for language designers who weren’t intending to make off by one errors more frequent). It’s where set theory starts, but it’s absolutely not where counting starts, and number starts with counting. It’s not a natural number.
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.
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.
Depends on how you draw it.
Strictly positive numbers, Z0+, don’t include zero. Positive numbers aka naturals, Z+ = N, do.
Edit: this is what I’ve learned at school, but according to wikipedia the definitions of these vary quite a bit
I just say “big’uns”
This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I’ve laughed at.
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.
Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.
Big Naturals Are More Pronounced
ftfy
Be glad it isn’t Positive Integers Venti
I don’t care if they’re big, as long as they’re real
You like big figures and you cannot lie?
I don’t care if they’re real, as long as I can manipulate them
Imaginary ones are useful too.
They’re Real, and they’re fantastic.
I like natural more as well because numbers aren’t real and claiming otherwise is just blue-balling all the nerds
Why, would anyone at all think about something else?
/s
Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.
In spite of that, I’m chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂
Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers
I googled “Big Naturals”. Result number 16 was this:
Should’ve been number 1.
big badonka-donkadonks
we like to see those Double negative intergers.
I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)
“Anything bigger than a handful, you’re risking a sprained tung”
