>>12591813

>>12591835

>>12591884

incredibly cringe

0 is a natural number

without 0, the natural numbers are not a monoid under addition, nor a group or a ring under addition and multiplication. with 0 it is all of these.

moreover, you need 0 to construct the natural numbers, as each non-zero natural number is the successor of a non-zero natural number or zero, it's there perverse to exclude zero from the natural numbers.

>>12591835

most mathematicians do consider 0 a natural number. look up the first peano axiom retard.