Illustration: There is an empty plate and 5 beans right next to it. Vedic matrix technically eliminates several number imagining problems of today. This is not tautological, unlike expressions like 'Whole Numbers are non-negative integers that are uncut, undivided, and not in pieces 0, 1, 2, 3…. Usually which one we use is decided by the context. It is quite natural to talk about three books or one calculator, but it makes no sense to talk about zero anythings.

NextThis is common in mathematics, we often have more than one name, or more than one symbol to stand for the same concept. Personally, I think of 'natural numbers' as the same as 'counting numbers' or 'positive integers'. Those familiar with solving Pell equations will often make use of these terms. Some mathematicians count 0 as a natural number, and others start at 1. It is part of our intuition of natural numbers that they go on for ever; you can always add 1.

NextYou look at the plate and you see one bean sitting on it. They were chosen ones, but the force of personality that chose them could vary from the benign to the insane. So is -1 among the natural numbers? So, do you know who was the first one to say that '0' is a natural number? Now you can see that numbers can belong to more than one classification group. I must say that I am unaware of England making such a distinction between 0 being included among the natural numbers. There is a set of arbitrary rules that someone sets up.

NextPerhaps the important logical distinction between nominal definitions conventional abbreviating notations and real definitions which specify essences could help. It will at least give some student from following their teacher's psychology. But to think this way, I have to accept that unity exists before I turn it into an abstraction, and that the sophistication of infinity, like nothing, or even set theory, is an unnatural offspring of the misunderstood and long ignored, unifying zero. And besides, what's whole about zero? Then, zero is the number of elements in the empty set; 1 is the number of elements in the set containing one natural number; and so on. That equals 1, a fine natural number. In subscripts, the lowercase i is sometimes used to represent a non-specific natural number when denoting the elements in a sequence or series. You're right about the degree to which you can remove pieces of paper and still describe it as a piece of paper compared to removing pieces or parts of a chair, but I still think that the idea has some merit, albeit tentative.

NextHowever, for 0, there exists option 1 absolutely no such combination, if you consider 0 not to be a prime, or option 2 an infinite amount of such combination, if you, for some weird reason, count 0 as a prime. After impressing everyone with your amazing dance moves at Homecoming, you add 49 more friends another natural number. Well, who is to say that man's lack of previous intellectual evolvement in this science does preclude genetic manipulation from being natural. The argument that zero is not a natural number because man could not count zero fingers does not make sense. In which case, what purpose does zero serve in this domain? I also see I made a typo, the positive integers were obviously supposed to have been the integers greater than or equal to 1, not strictly greater than 1. I say, let the set theorists have their special N, and if students use the other definition, let the applicable problems be exempted from their tests and explained, at least the first time they make the mistake. Similarly, the sun rises as the earth turns, and its turning also describes a 0, a circular motion that defines a day as the passage of the risen sun to sunset and back to sunrise.

NextAnother way of saying the above is that are in the global namespace, whereas is defined in a namespace local to the subject matter set theory, number theory, algebra, etc. Which indicates, for every natural number, there exists exactly one unique product. At my school, it is taught in my math class that the set of natural numbers starts at 1. It might contain the same matierial as paper but it would not function as paper. We need precision and a convention we can all agree on.

NextAnd now if I may digress slightly and only because 'nothing' has been mentioned quite often in the posts here! Whether 0 is a natural number or not seems to be answered by this. Your marks are given by personal preference so I would say what you were taught to say, collect the sweetie, and then remember that many rules of maths are preferential. Probably the earliest way of keeping record of a count was by some tally system involving physical objects such as pebbles or sticks. It seems more natural to me to call the empty set 0, since it contains nothing. The safest thing is to state whether you are including 0 or not when talking about Natural Numbers.

NextI have followed a policy of inclusiveness since college. I hope this practical truth helps to decide the issue. For a natural way of thinking, something or something else is normal. Natural numbers will never include a minus symbol - because they cannot be negative. Though you might end up with a problem-loop e. .

Next