@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agoZero to heromander.xyzimagemessage-square134fedilinkarrow-up1848arrow-down116
arrow-up1832arrow-down1imageZero to heromander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agomessage-square134fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish10•2 months agoIt is a natural number. Is there an argument for it not being so?
minus-square@darthelmetlinkEnglish21•2 months agoWell I’m convinced. That was a surprisingly well reasoned video.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish7•2 months agoThanks for linking this video! It lays out all of the facts nicely, so you can come to your own decision
minus-squareKogasalinkfedilinkEnglish4•2 months agoThere can’t really be an argument either way. It’s just a matter of convention. “Natural” is just a name, it’s not meant to imply that 1 is somehow more fundamental than -1, so arguing that 0 is “natural” is beside the point
It is a natural number. Is there an argument for it not being so?
no it’s not
Well I’m convinced. That was a surprisingly well reasoned video.
Thanks for linking this video! It lays out all of the facts nicely, so you can come to your own decision
There can’t really be an argument either way. It’s just a matter of convention. “Natural” is just a name, it’s not meant to imply that 1 is somehow more fundamental than -1, so arguing that 0 is “natural” is beside the point