this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
1164 points (99.2% liked)

memes

15473 readers
4272 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 !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

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
[–] regdog@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] xeekei@lemmy.zip 8 points 6 days ago

Should've been number 1.

[–] wellbuddyweek@lemm.ee 85 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 67 points 1 week 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.

[–] wellbuddyweek@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week 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.

[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 50 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Natural numbers include zero

That is a divisive opinion and not actually a fact

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago (1 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.

[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

positive interers with addition are not a monoid though, since the identity element of addition is 0

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They're not a complete algebraically closed field either, but I don't see you advocating for including e - i in the natural numbers!

[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

yeah, this is kinda weak argument

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Not sure if you're conceding the monoid part or not.

We can agree that the natural numbers are a semigroup, I think, which should make us all happy.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] errer@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Big naturals in fact include two zeroes:

(o ) ( o)

Spaces and parens added for clarity

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

[–] Quadhammer@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

(o Y o) solve for Y

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] peregrin5@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

Depends on how you draw it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Atlusb@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago

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

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Gandalf's large positive integers

Like that?

[–] weird@sub.wetshaving.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] gay_sex@mander.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

be the change you want to see!

[–] miss_demeanour@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 week ago

Big Naturals Are More Pronounced

ftfy

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Large nonnegative numbers*

[–] Tenkard@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If they're big the zero is skipped anyway

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Just write it bigger.

[–] jxk@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

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

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 1 week ago

They're Real, and they're fantastic.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

You like big figures and you cannot lie?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Imaginary ones are useful too.

[–] AngularViscosity@piefed.social 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Sound made up, like imaginary numbers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bosht@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

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

[–] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

https://youtu.be/B8dldLG_ZhI

"Anything bigger than a handful, you're risking a sprained tung"

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 week ago

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

[–] ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Natural Numbers ≠ Integers though.

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

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Positive integers are (a subset of) natural numbers

[–] ewenak@jlai.lu 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

you answered your own question

[–] ewenak@jlai.lu 3 points 1 week 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.

[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

it is neither positive nor negative

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I just say “big’uns”

[–] isekaihero@ani.social 6 points 1 week ago

big badonka-donkadonks

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

we like to see those Double negative intergers.

load more comments
view more: next ›