Poll: Does zero exist? - intellectual debate

[beddo]

I can go with that - thou you could always be difficult and argue 0.A* (pretend * is above value A and stands for infinite sign).

0.A* x 10 = A.A*

ergo 10 = A.A* and 1 = 0.A* and therefore you could say 9 = A so proportional expansion

Ghrk... no. No, you can't.

His quote is pointing out a contradiction in the logic and 'showing' in the vaguest sense that dividing by 0 is not a valid operation.

But he's using the proof that 0.99999999(repeating) = 1

THAT HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH ZERO!

Oops, I skimmed and read what I wanted too.

Also, he failed to take away the "0.A*" [sic]

 

[beddo]

Does 1 exist?

No one likes a smart arse : P

Believe it or not, I'm a mathematics major with a minor in philosophy, and these things have been extensively debated in history.

The Greeks, while having no notion of 0, had some interesting ideas on this. Especially the likes of Plato. While he was most certainly wrong, it's interesting to imagine that each cardinal number has a platonic form.

Later philosophers like Locke probably would have noted that an item which has a "Oneness" is simply a substance with the characteristic of oneness to it. However, thinking about zero I believe he would have had trouble with "nothing" having a characteristic as it is not a substance.

If we're going for an actual mathematical perspective, numbers don't actually "exist" they're an abstract toolset used by humans.

Not true. Mathematics is a system unto itself, even if there were no humans maths would still exist; it's all there, we just 'found' it, we didn't invent it.

Consider mathematical errors over the years, the truth existed all along, we just hadn't figured it out.

 

[rees263]

- snip -

That sort of makes sense and explains what I always thought.
ie There are an infinite number of Real numbers between 0 and 1
" " 0 and 2
but clearly there are more real numbers between 0 and 2 than there are 0 and 1. Are there double? Do operations such as doubling and multiplication even apply to infity.

Anyway the answers i remember are
a) ask everyone to move up one room. person in room 1 goes to room 2, person in room 1 million goes to 1 million and 1 etc, leaving room 1 free for a new guest
b) Ask everyone to go to the room number double of their current number. Person in room 2 goes to room 4, room 108 goes to 216 etc. New set of inifinite people go to the odd rooms.

You're right, those are the correct explanations.

The number of numbers between 0 and 1 and 0 and 2 is in fact the same.

Because infinity isn't really a number it doesn't follow the same rules. For an explanation we'll go back to the hotel again.

The first part of the problem shows that "Infinity+1=Infinity"
The second shows that "Infinity*2=Infinity"

I hope you can see how that works. So logically you might think there are twice as many numbers between 0 and 2 as there are between 0 and 1, the solution to the hotel problem shows us that they are in fact the same.

This has nothing to do with the different sizes of infinity, but the principles apply to both that I have mentioned.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Oh dear goodness you mathematicians.

The first post sums it up perfectly, a figure to rationalise the absence of something. It exists even though it represents something non existant, humans are very, very good at representing things that don't exist.

This is also why negative numbers exist in maths. In reality there can't be less than nothing, but mathmatics do not take into account whether it is meant to be a quantity of something, or a measure of change, or anything else. This is why negative numbers can make no sense in some applications and perfect sense in others.

Plus, I think it's this property of mathematics that actually allows it to even function properly all the time, but I'm more than likely mistaken on that point.

The OP just seems to be using half-baked logic to me to some degree... at best, the OP is reading too much into the idea of 0, while simultaneousely thinking along the wrong direction.

I've probably absolutely butchered SOMETHING in what I said, but oh well.

Edit;
Oh, and let's not forget that our good friends computers couldn't even exist if there wasn't such a thing as 0 in numeric representation.

 

[robman1130]

0 was invented by the mayans.... dont mess with it or theyll end the world

 

[888Em-chan888]

Uuurk maths. Just no.

Anyways. Of course zero exists. What happens when I eat all my eggs? There are zero left in the egg box. And besides, whats this -> 0

I like the way you think. :0 ---> :| ---> :0 ---> :| = OM NOM NOM Its just not the same if you use O. :O :0 Not the same.

 

[Steveh15]

Does 1 exist?

No one likes a smart arse : P

Believe it or not, I'm a mathematics major with a minor in philosophy, and these things have been extensively debated in history.

Lol, I believe you, I was just making a joke.

I was thinking about what you said. Isn't it important to seperate the notion of zero as a philosophical/metaphysical/*some other fancy word* concept from the mathematical concept. Clearly when I talk about having zero apples in my hand, the word zero has an entirely different meaning to say, what happens when I divide zero by zero?

Anyway, I don't really know much about this stuff yet. As a Physics undergraduate, my understanding of Maths is that it's a tool we use to describe physical world, and also a language by which we can translate concepts such as quantum Physics which the human brain simply isn't evolved enough to understand.

 

[Weaver]

Does 1 exist?

No one likes a smart arse : P

Believe it or not, I'm a mathematics major with a minor in philosophy, and these things have been extensively debated in history.

The Greeks, while having no notion of 0, had some interesting ideas on this. Especially the likes of Plato. While he was most certainly wrong, it's interesting to imagine that each cardinal number has a platonic form.

Later philosophers like Locke probably would have noted that an item which has a "Oneness" is simply a substance with the characteristic of oneness to it. However, thinking about zero I believe he would have had trouble with "nothing" having a characteristic as it is not a substance.

If we're going for an actual mathematical perspective, numbers don't actually "exist" they're an abstract toolset used by humans.

Not true. Mathematics is a system unto itself, even if there were no humans maths would still exist; it's all there, we just 'found' it, we didn't invent it.

Consider mathematical errors over the years, the truth existed all along, we just hadn't figured it out.

We forged it in our image. We use a base 10 system, we could have used a base 60 like the Babylonians. We certainly "discovered" how our interplay of ideas connects together, but how can you claim it "exists"? It is entirely abstract. Take geometry, perfect triangles are not a real entity, yet we use them all the time. 1 does not "exist" but we use it. A system of partial third order differential equations does not "exist" but we can use them.

 

[asinann]

According to my last math instructor zero is a concept, nothing more. Math existed just fine before the invention of the concept of zero. The zero just makes math easier.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

It exists only in the realm of mathematics, not reality. Mathematics is only a language which we use to describe nature, and zero is representative of absence. So in nature, by its own definition, zero does not exist.

To defend against some points of view already shared, to say you have zero eggs in your carton is to say you don't have any eggs. There is nothing there.

 

[The3rdEye]

IMO

No, zero does not exist. It is a construct of our minds that allows us to erroneously rationalize the absence of an object as a result of the reasoning that the present quantity can not fulfill any of our current or foreseeable future needs, and is therefore as good as nothing.

As an example (and to more clearly demonstrate what I mean), let's say there is an apple cut into six pieces on the counter, and that piece by piece we consume the apple. After three of the six pieces of apple are gone, we can still agree that there is a or some apple. However, after all six of the pieces are eaten, we say that there is no longer an apple (or that there are "zero apples") even though there may very well be juices or particles of apple still on the table. However, since the only thing we can do with the apple (in this scenario) is eat it these trace elements, while being every bit as much an apple as the last piece which we considered to be "some apple" although on a greatly reduced scale, do not fulfill the function of providing something to eat. IOW, zero is a construct for when the quantity of a substance or object is below the minimum levels needed for us to perform a useful act with them.

Sort of like "There's nothing to eat/There's nothing in the fridge" where in order for either of these statements to be true the fridge would have to be completely bare.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

This makes no sense. Are you saying it doesn't exist because if follows rules that other numbers follow? Well, if it must follow rules to exist, look at the English language. Plus, all rules, laws, etc. for why things "work" are man made.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

(Here follows a linguistic debate, not a mathematical one)

I take the linguistic side to this debate (also the philosophic, etymological side in case you're interested in bandying semantcs, which I clearly am)

Zero does not exist because the concept of numbers is a human abstraction of thought, separated from the world in which things congregate with other things. There is no way to phrase this except to use other human abstractions, but I shall try.

Language is not divorced from humanity, it does not descend from some higher plane, it is made, created, altered, adjusted and butchered by humans. Numbers are an offshoot of language, I see that there is nothing in exitence and I use the sounds of 'ze-ro' to show to someone else fluent in my language that there is nothing in existence where I look. Similarly I use the sound 'won/one' to denote that there is a single object within my sightline, which I am including within my statement that there is a single object within my sightline etc etc.

To a Frenchman I make no sense, since 'zero' does not exist in his language, nor in Spanish, or German, or most other world languages (I don't know numbers in every world language, so this is just covering myself). Thus the term 'zero' must have no meaning, else if there were some outward meaning that is imprinted upon all humanity, everyone would understand it. We may understand the concept of there being nothing in conflict to there being something, but the term 'zero' as a word, means nothing.

I hope my literary hypothesis has amused and given some thought.

 

[ezeroast]

I guess its like asking if darkness is real, it's just the absence of light but does it really exist?

And my answer is yes it does (both the number 0 and darkness)

 

[MMMowman]

Of couse it doesn't exist! It represents nothing. How many cows do I have 0!

If it doesn't exist how can you write it down? How can you understand that you have no cows?

IT REPRESENTS THAT THERE IS NOTHING!!! AND NOTHING EXISTS!!!

 

[Dommyboy]

yessss zero represtents nothing, and nothing is somthing.....if that makes any sence

Prove nothing exists.

 

[DRTJR]

zero does exist it is the representation of nothing

 

[Steveh15]

I guess its like asking if darkness is real, it's just the absence of light but does it really exist?

And my answer is yes it does (both the number 0 and darkness)

Different things. Darkness and cold are just adjectives which we use to describe a Luminosity and Heat Energy relative to one other.
Eg this is dark compared to that
This is cold compared to that

The mathematical and philsopical definitions of zero are more complicated than that.

 

[Plurralbles]

it also means False.

So F your logic many peole have written countless journals on Zero and you will not find a new way to look at it.

 

[Blatherscythe]

1-1=0
thus n-n=0(n=any same number)