Colin Watson wrote: > I only did one year of maths at Cambridge, but in the conventionally > agreed terminology there the set of natural numbers was definitely not > defined to include zero. Peano's first axiom is "1 is a natural number", > not "0 is a natural number".
It's an Emacs vs. vi issue. > I think you're confusing "different interpretation of disagreed > terminology" with "wrong". The membership of zero in the set of natural > numbers is a matter of disagreed terminology. Mathematics is nothing but terminology, but some terminology is so awkward that it's just wrong (maybe not false, but still wrong 8-).
