Is zero a natural number?
January 18, 2022 at 6:35 am
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2022 at 8:11 am by Jehanne.
Edit Reason: P.S.
)
I originally thought of titling this thread, "How to piss-off a group of pure and applied mathematicians in (5...15] minutes" but did not want to get any sort of PA tag.
In any case, I am going to buck the overwhelming trend among mathematicians as of late and say that zero is not a natural number and also say that the question of zero's "naturalness" is principally a question of anthropology and not of mathematics. Some years ago I read a book, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, and when the concept of zero was developed in India (and elsewhere) in the 7th century (or, thereabouts) and made its way to Europe, it was not greeted warmly; people were suspicious. Here's an example of a modern-day ("money making") scholastic denying the existence of the number zero:
The segment in question is only 2 minutes long (if you can stand such), but, clearly, Dr. Craig, who was a communications major at Wheaton College, is having difficultly understanding the fact that numbers can be used as nominal values, but, that's another post.
In any case, the number zero is, in my opinion, not "natural", in the same sense that infinitesimals, limits, convergent/divergent series and non-Euclidean geometries are not natural. What is certain is that the professional mathematicians, both pure and applied, are going to disagree!
P.S. The YouTube link didn't paste correctly; you have to scroll to the 1:17:50 mark if you want to hear Dr. Craig's buffoonery.
P.P.S. To Dr. Craig, "infinity" is not a number.
In any case, I am going to buck the overwhelming trend among mathematicians as of late and say that zero is not a natural number and also say that the question of zero's "naturalness" is principally a question of anthropology and not of mathematics. Some years ago I read a book, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, and when the concept of zero was developed in India (and elsewhere) in the 7th century (or, thereabouts) and made its way to Europe, it was not greeted warmly; people were suspicious. Here's an example of a modern-day ("money making") scholastic denying the existence of the number zero:
The segment in question is only 2 minutes long (if you can stand such), but, clearly, Dr. Craig, who was a communications major at Wheaton College, is having difficultly understanding the fact that numbers can be used as nominal values, but, that's another post.
In any case, the number zero is, in my opinion, not "natural", in the same sense that infinitesimals, limits, convergent/divergent series and non-Euclidean geometries are not natural. What is certain is that the professional mathematicians, both pure and applied, are going to disagree!
P.S. The YouTube link didn't paste correctly; you have to scroll to the 1:17:50 mark if you want to hear Dr. Craig's buffoonery.
P.P.S. To Dr. Craig, "infinity" is not a number.
