this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1154 points (99.2% liked)

memes

15366 readers
4116 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I googled "Big Naturals". Result number 16 was this:

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 days ago

Should've been number 1.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (10 children)

Actually, those are not the same. Natural numbers include zero, positive integers do not. She shoud definately use 'big naturals'.

Edit: although you could argue that it doesnt matter as 0 is arguably neither big nor large

[–] [email protected] 67 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Natural numbers only include zero if you define it so in the beginning of your book/paper/whatever. Otherwise it's ambiguous and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago

Fair enough, as a computer scientist I got tought to use the Neumann definition, which includes zero, unless stated differently by the author. But for general mathematics, I guess it's used both ways.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Natural numbers include zero

That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Yeah, it's a matter of convention rather than opinion really, but among US academia the convention is to exclude 0 from the naturals. I think in France they include it.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:

(o ) ( o)

Spaces and parens added for clarity

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

(0 ) ( 0)
You can't fool me.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

(o Y o) solve for Y

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

Depends on how you draw it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Gandalf's large positive integers

Like that?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Oh wow. Do we have a lemmy community for that?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 days ago

be the change you want to see!

[–] [email protected] 48 points 4 days ago

Also in an aqueous environment, they become floating point values.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago

This actually got a chuckle out of me. Prob the first number related joke I've laughed at.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Large nonnegative numbers*

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If they're big the zero is skipped anyway

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Just write it bigger.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Thanks for the comment - - I will fight for recognizing zero as a natural number

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

In mathematics, the natural numbers are the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly excluding 0.[1] Some start counting with 0, defining the natural numbers as the non-negative integers 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., while others start with 1, defining them as the positive integers 1, 2, 3, ... .[a] Some authors acknowledge both definitions whenever convenient.[2] Sometimes, the whole numbers are the natural numbers as well as zero. In other cases, the whole numbers refer to all of the integers, including negative integers.[3] The counting numbers are another term for the natural numbers, particularly in primary education, and are ambiguous as well although typically start at 1.

Sauce

So it is undefined behavior, great

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes. Some mathematicians think that 0 is natural, others don't. So "natural number" is ambiguous.

In order to avoid ambiguity, instead of using fancy "N", you should use fancy "N0" to refer to {0,1,2,3,4,...} and "positive integers" to refer to {1,2,3,4,...}.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Don't get me started on the unnatural and supernatural numbers.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Sound made up, like imaginary numbers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago

Big Naturals Are More Pronounced

ftfy

[–] usualsuspect191 18 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I don't care if they're big, as long as they're real

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

I don't care if they're real, as long as I can manipulate them

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

They're Real, and they're fantastic.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

You like big figures and you cannot lie?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I like naturals, but more than a mouthful is kind of a waste. ;-)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.

In spite of that, I'm chuckling. Math can be funny sometimes 😂

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Why a subset? They're the same thing right? I guess it could be about the zero?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you answered your own question

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Well what I learned in school was that zero was both positive and negative. I knew some people consider the natural numbers don't include zero, but I didn't know for some zero isn't even positive.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

it is neither positive nor negative

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I knew a physicist who considered 0 negative if she arrived at 0 coming from negative source numbers and positive if coming from positive sources.

Something something sampling rate

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

big badonka-donkadonks

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

That's true OP, "big naturals" are indeed very pronounced.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

I just say “big’uns”

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

Why, would anyone at all think about something else?

/s

load more comments
view more: next ›