Big naturals is way easier to pronounce
Big naturals is way easier to pronounce
69 comments
-
-
Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.
-
Gandalf's large positive integers
Like that?
-
Oh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?
-
be the change you want to see!
-
-
-
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
-
Zero indexed gang, yes
-
sure, but a large one?
-
-
-
Big Naturals Are More Pronounced
ftfy
-
Don't get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.
-
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.
-
-
This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I've laughed at.
-
I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)
-
"Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained tung"
-
-
That's true OP, "big naturals" are indeed very pronounced.
-
I googled "Big Naturals". Result number 16 was this:
-
Should've been number 1.
-
-
I just say “big’uns”
-
big badonka-donkadonks
-
we like to see those Double negative intergers.
-
Be glad it isn't Positive Integers Venti
-
Why, would anyone at all think about something else?
/s
-
I like natural more as well because numbers aren’t real and claiming otherwise is just blue-balling all the nerds
69 comments
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
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.
That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact
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.
Yeah I find it easier to just accept the terminology of natural numbers and whole numbers so we have simple names for both.
Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:
(o ) ( o)
Spaces and parens added for clarity
(0 ) ( 0)
You can't fool me.
(o Y o) solve for Y
When enclosed in parentheses I believe the correct term is "bolt-ons"
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
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?