this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
856 points (98.2% liked)

Science Memes

10923 readers
2327 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] expr 89 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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^+.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Can I pay them to make my dick length the ISO standard?

[–] gens 6 points 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.

[–] expr 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Because ISO is the International Organisation for Standardization

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yes, but it's not for mathematicians. It's for the applied fields.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah dont do that.

[–] kogasa 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] kogasa 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Of course they're considered equally viable conventions, it's just that one is prevalent among Americans and the other isn't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think you're using a fringe definition of the word "fringe".

[–] kogasa 1 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kogasa 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I did say mathematician, not logician.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Logicians are mathematicians. Well, most of them are.

[–] kogasa 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But not all mathematicians are logicians.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kogasa -1 points 6 months ago