this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
861 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

15187 readers
1222 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

N is the set of "counting numbers".

When you count upwards you start from 1, and go up. However, when you count down you usually end on 0. Surely this means 0 satisfies the definition.

The natural numbers are derived, according to Brouwer, from our intuition of time of time by the way. From this notion, 0 is no strange idea since it marks the moment our intuition first begins ^_^

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

0 is natural.

Source - programming languages.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We don't talk about those kids, they're weird. :)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't personally know many programming languages that provide natural number type in their prelude or standard library.

In fact, I can only think of proof assistants, like Lean, Coq, and Agda. Obviously the designer of these languages know a reasonable amount of mathematics to make the correct choice.

(I wouldn't expect the same from IEEE or W3C, LOL

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's really just a joke about counting from 0 instead of 1.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Oh, array indexing, sure.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

countable infinite set are unique up-to bijection, you can count by rational numbers if you want. I don't think counting is a good intuition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

On the contrary - to be countabley infinite is generally assumed to mean there exists a 1-1 correspondence with N. Though, I freely admit that another set could be used if you assumed it more primitive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

On the contrary - to be countabley infinite is generally assumed to mean there exists a 1-1 correspondence with N.

Isn't this what I just said? If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what "unique up-to bijection" means.

Anyways, I mean either starting from 1 or 0, they can be used to count in the exactly same way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I'm arguing from the standpoint that we establish the idea of counting using the naturals - it's countable if it maps to the naturals, thus the link. Apologies for the lack of clarity.