*If you are in Hong Kong and you need help for university mathematics courses, please visit www.all-r-math.com.*

Giuseppe Peano says 1 is the smallest natural number, while John von Neumann says that 0 is the smallest natural number?

Yes. In the past, or even nowadays, 0 as a number is not quite natural in many people's eyes. However, when mathematicians want to give a vigorous definition for ordinal numbers, they figure out that 0 should be the starting point.

What is the vigorous definition for ordinal numbers?

An ordinal number α is a set of ordinal numbers that are smaller then α.

So 3={0,1,2}, 5={0,1,2,3,4} are ordinal numbers?

True. All natural numbers are ordinal numbers. Indeed the set

ω={0,1,2,3,...}

is also an ordinal number. It is the smallest infinite ordinal number.

The second smallest infinite ordinal is {0,1,2,...,ω}?

Yes, it is ω+1. Note that it is different from 1+ω which equals to ω. The definition of addition is like this--

{0,1,2,...}+{0,1,2,...}={0,1,2,..., 0,1,2,...},

where the symbols with different colors are considered different, and that the elements are listed in the order.

By renaming the elements, we see that

3+2={0,1,2}+{0,1}={0,1,2}+{3,4}={0,1,2,3,4}=5.

The addition for finite ordinals is the usual addition of natural numbers.

However, we see that

ω+1={0,1,2,...}+{0}={0,1,2,...}+{ω}={0,1,2,...,ω} but

1+ω={0}+{0,1,2,3,...}={0}+{1,2,3,...}=ω.

The two are different as ω+1 has a largest element but ω does not.

I doubt we still ignore 0 with we deal with ordinal numbers in daily language?

Well, we have invented a word "zeroth", denote that something should come earlier before the first object in a series. For example, the zeroth chapter or the zeroth law of thermodynamics.