Not exactly true. You can formally construct the set of real numbers with set theory and then say a number is an element of that set Wikipedia page on different approaches: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_num...

If we're talking about "number" in general, yes, it is true that this is an informal term among mathematicians.

What mathematicians are you talking about? Set theorists and number theoriests have very precise definitions of numbers.

Maybe by "number" in general do you mean something that encapsulates both "real numbers" as in lengths, and "integers" as in the discrete counting numbers? In which you can quite easily do so by defining real numbers, either formally or saying that something like the Wikipedia definition that they are a distance along a line, and then saying integers are a subset of those numbers.

Mathematicians have precise definitions of "real numbers", "complex numbers", etc. but not of "number." For example, are the hyperreals numbers? Nonstandard integers? Quaternions?

Mathematicians have definitions of all those things. And if you are working in something like the quaternions so do all the previous you mentioned (real numbers, complex numbers) because they are subsets of the well defined quaternions.

I agree in a sense there is no agreed-upon simple non-formal definition which encapsulates all of those together but I think that's unfair to try to do since hyperreals, quaternions, etc are extreme extensions which aren't used in most ordinary mathematics.

That is like saying that physicists have no precise definition of "distance" because there is Euclidean distance, Geodesic distance, Hyperbolic distance, Hamming distance, Levenshtein distance etc etc etc

You can go down the same rabbit hole I guess and say "yeah! true! distance has no definition either!" but I don't find that very helpful. At this point you are just saying nothing can be defined, at which point the phrase "we have no precise definition of X" has no meaning as it is true for all X.

Some things are formally defined terms of art and some things aren't. There are some people here who don't merely want to learn a model for the naturals, they want some kind of spiritual essence of a number. It's useful to say that number is an informal term, and that the fuzzy boundaries you think with are adequate for communication.

Similarly, "crazy" is not a term of art for psychiatry. That doesn't mean a lack of definition, and lacking formalism does not mean inadequate for communication. By using a fuzzy term for communication, you imply a taste in curation and abstraction. It means you don't want to get into the details of what crazy means.

> That is like saying that physicists have no precise definition of "distance" because there is Euclidean distance, Geodesic distance, Hyperbolic distance, Hamming distance, Levenshtein distance etc etc etc

A metric is a term of art, and if that's the level of specificity you wanted, then it's adequate.