So I was in the shower listening to a podcast where one of the host brought up the word integer.
I feintly remembered what an integer is from grade 7 but just to double check I googled it.
Google stated: “An **integer** (from the Latin **integer** meaning “whole”) is colloquially defined as a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and **−2048** are **integers”**
I get the basic idea that it’s a whole but why are negative numbers considered an integer? 1 is a whole thing, if you have a whole pizza you have 1 whole pizza that can be divided into slices, but it can’t go less than 1, so if you have a 0 that’s the lowest it goes because there is nothing and any negative number is a theoretical number.
If 0 and anything lower than zero is less than 1, how can it be a whole if it is less than a whole? 0 is the lowest possible number that can divide into every number because nothing is taken away, you can divide with negative numbers but you can also divide with fractions so that doesn’t prove negative numbers as integers. If an negative number is less than a whole because it’s less than zero I feel like that should define it as a fraction.
I feel really silly for making that statement but the more I think about it the more confused I feel i’m making myself, does anyone have any answers?
In: Mathematics
It seems like you’re making up your own definition of integer. You say it has to be a whole number, which is not true. It can’t be “theoretical”, whatever that means. You say you must be able to divide it into every number, which is also not true. You’re then confused why there are integers that don’t match your definition.
An integer is simply a number in the set { … , -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, … }. The dots “…” indicates that the set goes on forever in both directions. You can see how all these numbers can be written without fractions. That’s all there is to it.
Latest Answers