I Is this a correct way to describe number sets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Logical Dog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sets
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the correct definitions of number sets, specifically natural numbers (N), integers (Z), and rational numbers (Q). Participants confirm that irrational numbers can be represented as the difference between real numbers and rational numbers, denoted as R\Q. The conversation also highlights that infinity should not be included in the definitions of these sets, as it complicates mathematical operations. Additionally, the Peano Postulates are mentioned in relation to defining natural numbers, emphasizing that while there are standard definitions, they are not unique. Overall, the dialogue reflects a deep engagement with the foundational aspects of number theory.
  • #31
micromass said:
But sure, ##0## is unnatural. I have 2 apples and give 2 apples to my brother. What I have left is nothing natural??

Also, axiomatic set theory is pretty clear on the issue that ##0## should be a natural number. You'd make a mess out of the theory otherwise.
But this argument is essentially practicability as it is to exclude units to be prime. I have no problem when people work with ##\mathbb{N}_0## though.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
micromass said:
Meh, once you rigorously define those terms, we might find an answer. So far, nobody has really given a satisfactory definition.
ok boss..this is all way over my head. xD
 
  • #33
fresh_42 said:
But this argument is essentially practicability as it is to exclude units to be prime. I have no problem when people work with ##\mathbb{N}_0## though.

Well, clearly you don't think math should be elegant. I think elegance trumps everything else. And if you believe in elegance, ##0## should be a natural.
 
  • #34
number is undefined, so is point, proposition, true, false, set, element...o0):frown:
 
  • #35
micromass said:
Well, clearly you don't think math should be elegant. I think elegance trumps everything else. And if you believe in elegance, ##0## should be a natural.
Oh no. I won't turn into this ... Far too obvious!
 
  • #36
Compromise:

natural.png


Include 0 only half. Is that natural enough?
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159 and S.G. Janssens
  • #37
mfb said:
Compromise:

View attachment 106007

Include 0 only half. Is that natural enough?
We have to ask the Indians. As far as I know they have the copyright on the ##0##. I'm sure we've had numbers when we lived in Africa, but it took a civilization to use the ##0##. Probably some bookies ...
 
  • #38
fresh_42 said:
We have to ask the Indians. As far as I know they have the copyright on the ##0##. I'm sure we've had numbers when we lived in Africa, but it took a civilization to use the ##0##. Probably some bookies ...

Some tribes count as ##1,2,3,\text{many}##. So I deny that the number ##10## is very natural.
 
  • #39
micromass said:
Some tribes count as ##1,2,3,\text{many}##. So I deny that the number ##10## is very natural.
It's just another name for 2. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes S.G. Janssens

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K