MHB Zero: Natural or Counting Number?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Zero is classified as an integer, whole number, rational number, and real number, but it is not considered a natural number or counting number. Natural numbers are defined as positive whole numbers, typically starting from 1, which leads to the convention of excluding zero from this category. The ambiguity surrounding the definition of natural numbers arises from varying conventions, with some including zero and others excluding it. To avoid confusion, it is advisable to clarify definitions when discussing natural numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of integer classifications
  • Familiarity with number sets: natural, whole, rational, and real numbers
  • Knowledge of mathematical conventions and definitions
  • Basic counting principles
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the definitions of natural numbers in different mathematical contexts
  • Explore the implications of including zero in number sets
  • Examine the historical context of counting numbers and their conventions
  • Investigate how ambiguity in definitions affects mathematical communication
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, educators, students, and anyone interested in the foundations of number theory and mathematical definitions.

nycfunction
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Zero is an integer. An integer is defined as all positive and negative whole numbers and zero. Zero is also a whole number, a rational number and a real number, but it is not typically considered a natural number, nor is it an irrational number. Why is 0 not a natural or counting number?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You realize, I hope, that this is simply a convention. The "counting numbers" (also called the "natural numbers") are defined as the positive whole numbers. If you really want a reason, I would offer that you start counting things "1, 2, 3, …", not "0, 1, 2, 3, …".
 
What HallsofIvy said ^^.

Also, the definition of natural numbers is not universally consistent. Some conventions include 0. Others exclude 0.
It means we have to be careful with natural numbers, and always check how an author defines them.
Best IMHO is to avoid the phrase natural numbers altogether, since it's a source of ambiguity and confusion.
 
Klaas van Aarsen said:
What HallsofIvy said ^^.

Also, the definition of natural numbers is not universally consistent. Some conventions include 0. Others exclude 0.
It means we have to be careful with natural numbers, and always check how an author defines them.
Best IMHO is to avoid the phrase natural numbers altogether, since it's a source of ambiguity and confusion.

Why is the phrase NATURAL NUMBERS ambiguous and confusing?
 
nycfunction said:
Why is the phrase NATURAL NUMBERS ambiguous and confusing?

Klaas van Aarsen said:
What HallsofIvy said ^^.

Also, the definition of natural numbers is not universally consistent. Some conventions include 0. Others exclude 0.

If sources define the same term with different definitions then there will be confusion. It's nothing more than that.

-Dan
 
HallsofIvy said:
If you really want a reason, I would offer that you start counting things "1, 2, 3, …", not "0, 1, 2, 3, …".
The mathematician S. had to move to a new place. His wife didn't trust him very much, so when they stood down on the street with all their things, she asked him to watch their ten trunks, while she get a taxi. Some minutes later she returned. Said the husband:
"I thought you said there were ten trunks, but I've only counted to nine."
The wife said: "No, they're TEN!"
"But I have counted them: 0, 1, 2, ..."
From here.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
The mathematician S. had to move to a new place. His wife didn't trust him very much, so when they stood down on the street with all their things, she asked him to watch their ten trunks, while she get a taxi. Some minutes later she returned. Said the husband:
"I thought you said there were ten trunks, but I've only counted to nine."
The wife said: "No, they're TEN!"
"But I have counted them: 0, 1, 2, ..."
From here.

When we count things, zero must be excluded. Zero is never assigned to items or people when we count. I get it now. It should have been obvious to me.

However, I have seen a few major league baseball players in MLB history assigned the number 0 on the back of the uniform shirt. If memory serves me right, I think one baseball player in baseball history was assigned a DOUBLE ZERO on the back of his uniform shirt.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K