Associated Topics || Dr. Math Home || Search Dr. Math

### Natural Numbers, Positive Integers

```
Date: 04/07/97 at 10:25:22
From: Eric Manalastas
Subject: Natural Numbers, Positive Integers

My Algebra book says that there is a difference between the set of
natural (counting) numbers, i.e. {1,2,3,...} and the set of positive
integers, which should be {1,2,3,...}.  The book doesn't elucidate,
saying that that discussion would be too difficult for the reader.  I
can detect no obvious difference.  I know zero is neither positive nor
negative so it's not an element of the latter.  What gives?
```

```
Date: 04/07/97 at 15:36:06
From: Doctor Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Natural Numbers, Positive Integers

The distinction is one that isn't going to matter even to
mathematicians most of the time.  It matters only when we're concerned
with what's called "the foundations of mathematics."  A number of
mathematicians in the late nineteenth century started to wonder about
how mathematics could be built up from the simplest possible
foundations.  The starting point was what we call the "natural
numbers."  They're called "natural" because they're so universal and
apparently so obvious that they seem to be given to us by nature.
Everybody in every culture has always known how to count.  But not
every culture has always had negative numbers, fractions, etc.

Now if you start with just the natural numbers, you don't have any
zero or any negative numbers. Zero and negative numbers were really
invented by mathematicians so they could do subtraction without having
to think about whether or not the number they were subtracting was
smaller than the number they were subtracting from. All this happened
a very long time ago, of course. But these nineteenth-century
mathematicians started worrying about where these new numbers came
from and they figured out a way to manufacture the new numbers out
of the natural numbers. The new set of numbers they constructed were
the integers (positive, negative, and zero). And lo and behold, the
positive integers, that is those new numbers which happened to be
greater than zero, turned out to form a system that looked exactly
like the old system of natural numbers. It had exactly the same
properties, and its smallest member behaved exactly like the natural
number 1, even though it was built by a somewhat complicated
construction and was by no means identical to the natural number 1.

Similar methods were used to build rational numbers out of integers
and real numbers out of rational numbers.  At each stage of the
process the numbers of the previous stage acquire images in the new
set of numbers which behave exactly like their predecessors but are
technically not identical to them.

Once this whole structure has been built up, we can pretty much forget
about it and go on with our lives, treating the natural numbers, the
integers, and the rational numbers as all just parts of the bigger
structure of real numbers.

-Doctor Wilkinson,  The Math Forum
Check out our web site!  http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
```
Associated Topics:
High School Number Theory

Search the Dr. Math Library:

 Find items containing (put spaces between keywords):   Click only once for faster results: [ Choose "whole words" when searching for a word like age.] all keywords, in any order at least one, that exact phrase parts of words whole words

Submit your own question to Dr. Math
Math Forum Home || Math Library || Quick Reference || Math Forum Search