is the first number 1 or 0 i think its 1 beacuse 0 is nothing

Iirc this is actually one of those things that's pretty artbitrary. On one hand I agree with your logic, but then I don't know where zero belongs.

>>8567264
OP is correct, 0 is not a number, rather it is a mathematical symbol to describe 'nothing' which is why so many operations with 0 are undefined. 2x2=4 which has to mean 4/2=2. That logic has to work for any number. But 0 fails to do this since 2x0=0 but 0/0 != 2

>>8567374
what other operations are undefined with zero you sperg

>>8567262

If you get a ruler and measure your penis you'll find the smallest known number.

>>8567384
0^0

>>8567384
Intersection of an arbitrary empty collection of sets

>>8567384
Any function f:A -> B with B the empty set

>>8567262
neither; 2
is the smallest number

>>8567384
0!

Lim n->0 of (1+n)^(1/n)

File: Screenshot_20161228-113216.png (125KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1440x2560px

>>8567398
>>8567406
>>8567410
Dud I'm really high man and I don't know these maths....

0^0 is 1 man.. or 0... Look at the graph Mann..

>>8567418
Limegs real man...

>>8567374
0 is the set containing nothing lol

File: Screenshot_20161228-113331.png (100KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 2560x1440px

>>8567418
it equal 1 u fucking tardy....

>>8567374
i wish people like you were dead
t. actual mathfag

>>8567410
literally the only thing you're saying with this statement is that A is empty
i really really wish you were fucking dead god i hate you

>>8567262
first number is 0 btw OP
look up a construction of the naturals like e.g. peano or the one described in Jech

>>8567426

Limit
n --> 0

not n --> Infinity

>>8567438
thn it's just e u sperg LOL

>>8567474
>>>/out/

>>8567431
No it's saying that f is not well defined. Kill yourself, please

>>8567428
> t. actual fag
ftfy

>>8567262
The first ordinal is one.

I prefer my Peano axioms to start with 1. I'm kind of a rebel.

People like you have ruined /sci/. Fuck off to /s4s/

To avoid any ambiguity, I like to write [math]\mathbb{Z}_{>0}[/math] and [math]\mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}[/math] for when I want to exclude [math]0[/math] and include [math]0,[/math] respectively. Alternatively, I just write [math]\mathbb{N}_0[/math] if I want it to be crystal clear that I'm including [math]0.[/math] If the inclusion of [math]0[/math] doesn't change anything and I want none of the negative integers, I just write [math]\mathbb{N}.[/math]

>>8567434
You can construct the naturals without 0. It's a convention and depends on whether or not you want your set to include 0.

File: number_sets.png (650KB, 1533x1140px) Image search: [Google]

650KB, 1533x1140px

>>8567374
>>8567264 (You)
>0 is not a number

Yes, it is.

>rather it is a mathematical symbol

Right, because it's a number.

>to describe 'nothing'

Right, like how 1 describes "oneness" and negative one describes a specific void of "oneness," zero describes "nothingness."

>which is why so many operations with 0 are undefined.

You just don't understand what you are talking about. Just because division by zero is typically undefined doesn't make it not a number.

Pic related

File: 142.jpg (99KB, 720x602px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x602px

>>8567262
>all these nonzero revisionists in this thread

Daily reminder that you are all heretics. Convert now or be purged on the day of the sword.

>>8567961
This. So much this. Let me suck you off.

>>8567374
>0 is not a number
>10 becomes 1
>20 becomes 2
>30 becomes 3
Go back to /b/, idiot

>>8567262
This is why the Fahrenheithe scale is ingenious. The equivalent to zero is 32.

>>8568108
>Fahrenheit or Celsius
>when you can use Kelvin
Why aren't you a /sci/entist, anon?

>>8568110
I hate the "symbol" zero, so I absolutely hate the Kelvin scale.

File: hes at it again.png (24KB, 568x74px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 568x74px

>>8566884

>>8568008
I'm down, I could go for some good head.

>>8567374
Zero was a mistake. Why the fuck do you need a symbol to represent nothing?

0 is not nothing retards. It's the neutral element. Identity.

>>8567374
This isn't an argument. Consider 1^a where a is some real number. We know that for all values of a, 1^a=1. However, the inverse of this is not well defined.

> I multiplied 0 by some number and got 0. What number did I multiply it by?

> I raised 1 to the power of some number and got 1. What number did I raise it to?

Lots of operations are undefined for lots of reasons. What does that have to do with anything?

>>8568059
spotted the biggest 'tard in the thread

>>8567262

1 is the first number

0 is the zeroth number

>>8567262
If you construct the surreal numbers, 0 is the natural starting point, being a game with no moves or
<:>

-infinity is the first

>>8568796
That's not a number. It's an element of the extended reals, but it isn't a number. There is no first number would be a good way of putting it. If we're talking natural numbers, then it's a convention that varies between and even within different fields.