what is the convention you adhere to when it comes to natural numbers?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

for example there is a long standing debate about 0... should we define [tex]\mathbb N = \{0,1,2,...\}[/tex] or instead [tex]\mathbb N = \{1,2,3,...\}[/tex]

and more about this, considering Peano's Axioms than we could choose [tex]\mathbb N =\{-7,-6,-5,...,0,1,2,3,....\}[/tex] -define the successor function [tex]\phi[/tex] as [tex]\phi (n) = n + 1[/tex] and "verifying" the axioms for this set is quite easy.

so is there anyreal point(!) with the natural numbers? :D

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Natural numbers

Loading...

Similar Threads - Natural numbers | Date |
---|---|

B Cardinality and Natural Numbers | Apr 14, 2017 |

I What does N^2 mean in the case of natural numbers? | Nov 12, 2016 |

Proof of |2^N x 2^N| = |2^N| with N the natural numbers | Nov 10, 2015 |

How to construct the natural numbers with hypersets | May 13, 2015 |

Natural numbers distributive lattice | Dec 9, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**