• expr@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • RandomWalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • doctordevice@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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^+.

      • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I hate those guys. I had that one prof at uni and he reinvented every possible symbol and everything was so different. It was a pita to learn from external material.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        they’ll probably make up their own symbology just because it’s slightly more convenient for their proof

        I feel so thoroughly called out RN. 😂

      • gens@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        From what i understand, you can pay iso to standardise anything. So it’s only useful for interoperability.

        • expr@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, interoperability. Like every software implementation of natural numbers that include 0.

          • WldFyre@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            How programmers utilize something doesn’t mean it’s the mathematical standard, idk why ISO would be a reference for this at all

          • gens@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            I feel they have an image to maintain, but i also feel they would sell out for enough money. So… tell me if you make it.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        The US is one of 3 countries on the planet that still stubbornly primarily uses imperial units. “The US doesn’t do it that way” isn’t a great argument for not adopting a standard.

      • holomorphic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

      • pooberbee (any)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.