kouriichi said:
your taking my words the wrong way.
1000 is not 0.
But requires the existance of zero, in order to exist itself. And that you cannot seem to get.
0 is a place holder. using it is more or less pointless.
So you continue to ignore the fundamental principles upon which your computer works.
Im not saying it shouldent exist, im saying its not a number.
binary code doesnt run off just 0's.
Yes it can - when examining a binary circuit, 000 is just as meaningful as 111.
its one long string of 1's and 0's.
0 itself is pointless.
So you continue to ignore the fundamental principles upon which your computer works.
So you cannot have a circuit with no current running trough it?
Write down 10, without using zero.
Write down 1001 without using zero.
Show me how to calculate vectors without the concept of a zero-vector.
Let us use cats as example, if tangible physical objects matter so much to you.
Show me i cats.
show me lim (x->0) x cats (hint, this is a number that is one infitesimally small step above zero, but is also as such included in a line of positive real numbers or part of the number line of ]0,Infinity] )
show me a picture of yourself holding -1 cats.
Show me precisely Pi cats.
In fact, show me anything tangible in any of those quantities. SHow me -1 apples. Pi water molecules, electric equipment with i voltage.
Zero is a number, a placeholder for the value of 'no value', just like 1 is just a placeholder for the value of 'singular whole unit'. Just like i is a placeholder for a value that cannot exist in the real world, and Pi for a value that is determinable only abstractly.
10 and 0 are 2 different numbers
and were not arguing weather "i" is a real number or not. Were arguing 0. Not Pi, not Pie ((like the others)) and not negatives.
Is 0 a place holder? it cant be both a place holder and a value. For a place holder has no value, but the value put in it.
And i could show you -1 apples xD
*shows plate of 3* the 4th apple is in the fridge. go look if you want. When you come back with it, there maybe -3 apples because others have taken them.
No, there would be zero apples, if them all have been taken while I was away. To have -1 apples, you'd need to have an anti-apple. Otherwise, you are showing me not the value -1 but rather the calculation "remove one".
10, is the combination of numbers 1 and 0, created by counting to 9, going one step further and declaring "we've had 1 full ten-count, and zero to add"
just like in a binary system 10 (base 2) = 2 (base 10) or read as "one-zero binary equals two base ten) = "We've had one full two-count, and zero one-count to add"
Both of these require the existance of number zero to be written.
And since you refuse to answer, I take it you cannot answer.
So your definition of number cannot handle lim (x->0)x, or i, or Pi as numbers.
Meaning, your entire argument is based on a flawed definition which in turn is flawed due to the hidden No True Scotsman fallacy.
What is the difference between a symbolic representation of a value and a placeholder for a value? I argue there isn't one. Both are definitions of numbers, with the value of the placeholder or symbol assigned denoting which number.
such as i, an irrational value
such as lim (x->0) x, an unmeasurably small value
such as Pi, a conceptual-only, abstract value
such as -1, negation of value (not removal, negation)
all are numbers, placeholders for value. If you agree, then what possible basis do you have for rejecting 0 as a placeholder for zero value?
