Poll: Is zero a number? (Read before voting)

[FluxCapacitor]

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

What?! People said the world was flat? How does that have any relevance to the discussion? Do you see yourself as some sort of noble thought pioneer here? Do you really think that no one has thought this before? Even after we told you that there was a time when people did not have an explicit zero, and then discovered the concept, and then their maths improved? Surely, if anything, the position that there is no such thing as zero is closer to the 'world is flat' notion - it's something people used to think beofre they learned more about the subject.

Seriously, I call troll. This is like arguing over the literal truth of the bible with a guy who says the bible is literally true because it says so in the bible (even though it doesn't).

 

[kouriichi]

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?

ugh. Your arguing about something completely differnt then what i am. Im not talking about binary code.
This debate is about just the number 0.
Nothing to do with computers, nothing with irrational numbers.
Just 0 itself.

Do you think 0 itself is a number?
Now why do you think this?

Why do you erraneously think that you can separate 0, a fundamental aspect of mathematics, from... well, mathematics?

Any discussion of numebers, is a discussion of mathematics.

Red Herring noted. Evasion noted.

I think zero is a number, because it is a placeholder for value. I think zero is a number, because it is

number
n noun
1 an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity.
2 a quantity or amount.

Now, do you accept i, -1, lim (x->0) x and Pi as numbers? If yes, why do you think zero is not a number?

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Yes.

Exactly like every other number.

Delay-tactics noted.

Now, are you going to answer?

But what you just said means im right, that 0 itself is not a number but a place holder.

Because to be a number, means to be a placeholder; a symbolic representation of a particular abstract concept.

it defys its own definition because it has no value, meaning it cannot define a quantity or amount.

Yes it can. Zero quantity. Lack of amount.

Just like a circuit not connected to a power-source has zero current running trough it.

Just like an empty basket has zero apples in it.

And if you tryed to use it to, there would be no "perticular" quantity or amount to define.

No True Scotsman-fallacy noted. Lack of connection to reality noted. Lack of connection to mathematics noted.

Leading to: sophistry noted.

sophistry
n noun (plural sophistries) the use of fallacious arguments, especially to deceive someone. Øa fallacious argument.

Meaning, create an actual mathematical argument why zero is not a number, and we can continue. Until then, you're just conflating philosophy with logic and mathematics.

Because 0 has no value. 0+1 is 1. your giving no value to 1.
You cannot give 0. you cannot remove 0. 0 is nothing. there is nothing to add, nothing to subrtact.

So why is it that 0+1 equals 1 if 0 has a value?

because its value is the absince of value, aka nothing. Thereby, nothing you do with zero should equal anything but the original.

Your trying to throw in computers, binary code and circuitry, when none of them have anything to do with the absolute orignal arguement.

Is 0 itself a number. You agreed with me. You said no, 0 is a place holder.

 

[kouriichi]

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

What?! People said the world was flat? How does that have any relevance to the discussion? Do you see yourself as some sort of noble thought pioneer here? Do you really think that no one has thought this before? Even after we told you that there was a time when people did not have an explicit zero, and then discovered the concept, and then their maths improved? Surely, if anything, the position that there is no such thing as zero is closer to the 'world is flat' notion - it's something people used to think beofre they learned more about the subject.

Seriously, I call troll. This is like arguing over the literal truth of the bible with a guy who says the bible is literally true because it says so in the bible (even though it doesn't).

No, im just saying people have been wrong. What if his "Fundamental branches of mathematics" were wrong?

Sure thats an entire nother descussion, but what if they were?
Were learning new things every day XD
How do we know hes idea is 100% infalable?

 

[kouriichi]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

wait, was that directed at me? xD

If so you cant measure nothing, because theres nothing to measure.

if there are 0 apples you cant measure the number of apples there are, thus you wouldent now it was truely 0 because you couldent accually measure the number of apples.

ow. i think i pulled something vital.

So from context I infer that your definition of a number is something that can be measured, is that correct?

More then that. Something tanganle. Something that can be givin, taken, or subject to change. It has to have value.

wouldn't that be an object rather than a number?

yes and no.
An object could go by that definition.
But it also couldent.

I mean, a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose.

Can you call your 0 cats to your lap?

No because there are no cats to call. You can call 10 imgainary cats to your lap, because to you, they are real. They are something you can call.

0 is nothing. Its value is just that. Nothing. you cant call nothing.

To call 0 cats would mean you are calling nothing! XD

not really fair to answer yes and no.

and aren't placeholders used for real purposes? and how do you differentiate between not calling the cat and calling a cat that is not there using simply the term nothing?

Yes, i not saying 0 itself has no real purpose. Im saying its not a number.

Well if 1 cat exists, and the other doesnt, then your not calling 0 cats.
Your calling 2 cats. one that exists, and one that doesnt.

 

[schiZm22]

Ahh...that's the glory that is mathematics. You can abstract concepts that are totally impossible to conceive any other way. You could apply this same argument for infinite. Both are unable to truly exist in our universe, but are damn useful. Same goes for i (square root of -1).

I guess I could give a definitive answer to my opinion on this argument. Since counting and mathematics are abstract concepts any way, calling zero a concept means it's imaginable. And if I can think of it and use it as a number, it is.

 

[Tears of Blood]

Zero is a number. Plain and simple.

It may also be a concept, but it is chiefly a number, a value. If there are no apples in a room, then you say there are zero apples in the room. Doesn't matter that apples exist elsewhere.

 

[kouriichi]

Ahh...that's the glory that is mathematics. You can abstract concepts that are totally impossible to conceive any other way. You could apply this same argument for infinite. Both are unable to truly exist in our universe, but are damn useful. Same goes for i (square root of -1).

I guess I could give a definitive answer to my opinion on this argument. Since counting and mathematics are abstract concepts any way, calling zero a concept means it's imaginable. And if I can think of it and use it as a number, it is.

But doesnt that mean any abstract concept thats toally impossible to conceive thats used in a mathematical light can be a number?

 

[Zacharine]

Is 0 itself a number. You agreed with me. You said no, 0 is a place holder.

Because as far as I understand the english language, that applies to all numbers; all numbers are symbolic representations of abstract concepts. Placeholders, for those concepts.

Now, I repeat one last time.

Is i a number?
Is -1 a number?
is lim (x->0) x a number?
is Pi a number?

All are mere placeholders for value. That is what it means to be a number, as far as I can explain it in english.

And as was shown to you before, zero has value.

You never managed a logically sound response to this.

 

[righthead]

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

What?! People said the world was flat? How does that have any relevance to the discussion? Do you see yourself as some sort of noble thought pioneer here? Do you really think that no one has thought this before? Even after we told you that there was a time when people did not have an explicit zero, and then discovered the concept, and then their maths improved? Surely, if anything, the position that there is no such thing as zero is closer to the 'world is flat' notion - it's something people used to think beofre they learned more about the subject.

Seriously, I call troll. This is like arguing over the literal truth of the bible with a guy who says the bible is literally true because it says so in the bible (even though it doesn't).

No, im just saying people have been wrong. What if his "Fundamental branches of mathematics" were wrong?

Sure thats an entire nother descussion, but what if they were?
Were learning new things every day XD
How do we know hes idea is 100% infalable?

there are certain fundamental aspects based on observable phenomena that form the basis of the system of mathematics. It has of course turned out in the past that certain of the phenomena were observed incompletely, just as Einstein turned newtons idea of gravity inside out. It would be rediculously long and difficult to use these phenomena to describe in rigorous mathematical terms what exactly zero is, but I feel confident that it has been done, though it's likely that something will change in that definition in the future.

 

[Zacharine]

Ahh...that's the glory that is mathematics. You can abstract concepts that are totally impossible to conceive any other way. You could apply this same argument for infinite. Both are unable to truly exist in our universe, but are damn useful. Same goes for i (square root of -1).

I guess I could give a definitive answer to my opinion on this argument. Since counting and mathematics are abstract concepts any way, calling zero a concept means it's imaginable. And if I can think of it and use it as a number, it is.

But doesnt that mean any abstract concept thats toally impossible to conceive thats used in a mathematical light can be a number?

Isn't Pi such a number?

After all, no perfect circle can exist.

 

[JohnSmith]

Yes its a number it really really really is. Things can sum to it, it has unique properties it is quite possibly the most important number in the entire number system. It not a place holder it is a necessity, it defines every other mathematical concept by its mere existence. Also yes the number line argument is not only completely reasonable but on many levels a more eloquent argument than any other it is an articulation of 0's existence, and purpose its demarkation of positive and negative real numbers.

Furthermore, without 0 and its property that dividing by it approaches infinity then certain physics problems would be undefined including those relating to relativity.

 

[schiZm22]

Ahh...that's the glory that is mathematics. You can abstract concepts that are totally impossible to conceive any other way. You could apply this same argument for infinite. Both are unable to truly exist in our universe, but are damn useful. Same goes for i (square root of -1).

I guess I could give a definitive answer to my opinion on this argument. Since counting and mathematics are abstract concepts any way, calling zero a concept means it's imaginable. And if I can think of it and use it as a number, it is.

But doesnt that mean any abstract concept thats toally impossible to conceive thats used in a mathematical light can be a number?

Well I wasn't specifically thinking of numbers per se when I wrote that. I was actually alluding to how mathematics can abstract more dimensions and physically impossible geometries. My main point was that if it can be assigned a value (even if that value is "undefined" in the case of infinite or impossible in the case of i) it is a number.

 

[kouriichi]

Is 0 itself a number. You agreed with me. You said no, 0 is a place holder.

Because as far as I understand the english language, that applies to all numbers; all numbers are symbolic representations of abstract concepts. Placeholders, for those concepts.

Now, I repeat one last time.

Is i a number?
Is -1 a number?
is lim (x->0) x a number?
is Pi a number?

All are mere placeholders for value. That is what it means to be a number, as far as I can explain it in english.

And as was shown to you before, zero has value.

You never managed a logically sound response to this.

0 has a value of nil. Nothing.

It has a different rule then other numbers. Like infinity. Like Pi. Like "i".
They all have theyer own rules.
The only one i would say is a number would be Pi.
Its a number because you can tangably see it. You can use it.
Does it end? we dont know.

infinity is not a number. it cannot be seen. It cannot be recorded, it cannot be used to add, subtract, divide or multiply.

and i is just strange. Who knows what the f*ck it truely is.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

What?! People said the world was flat? How does that have any relevance to the discussion? Do you see yourself as some sort of noble thought pioneer here? Do you really think that no one has thought this before? Even after we told you that there was a time when people did not have an explicit zero, and then discovered the concept, and then their maths improved? Surely, if anything, the position that there is no such thing as zero is closer to the 'world is flat' notion - it's something people used to think beofre they learned more about the subject.

Seriously, I call troll. This is like arguing over the literal truth of the bible with a guy who says the bible is literally true because it says so in the bible (even though it doesn't).

No, im just saying people have been wrong. What if his "Fundamental branches of mathematics" were wrong?

Sure thats an entire nother descussion, but what if they were?
Were learning new things every day XD
How do we know hes idea is 100% infalable?

Ah, yes, the old "what if every one but me is wrong?" argument. Here's the thing - you can't overthrow established science without a reason, and in order to find a reason you need to understand the establishment position. Galileo did it. Newton did it. Einstein did it. They changed the world's ideas because they understood the forefront of their present-day learning, and tried to look further. You are not doing that. You are ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and clinging to "I can't have 0 things in my hand", even though you think you can have 'nothing in your hand' and 'zero is nothing'.

Let's put the burden of proof where it belongs - on your side. Seriously, why should we disregard mathematicians saying 0 is a number? Why is your opinion better informed than an informed one?

 

[righthead]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

wait, was that directed at me? xD

If so you cant measure nothing, because theres nothing to measure.

if there are 0 apples you cant measure the number of apples there are, thus you wouldent now it was truely 0 because you couldent accually measure the number of apples.

ow. i think i pulled something vital.

So from context I infer that your definition of a number is something that can be measured, is that correct?

More then that. Something tanganle. Something that can be givin, taken, or subject to change. It has to have value.

wouldn't that be an object rather than a number?

yes and no.
An object could go by that definition.
But it also couldent.

I mean, a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose.

Can you call your 0 cats to your lap?

No because there are no cats to call. You can call 10 imgainary cats to your lap, because to you, they are real. They are something you can call.

0 is nothing. Its value is just that. Nothing. you cant call nothing.

To call 0 cats would mean you are calling nothing! XD

not really fair to answer yes and no.

and aren't placeholders used for real purposes? and how do you differentiate between not calling the cat and calling a cat that is not there using simply the term nothing?

Yes, i not saying 0 itself has no real purpose. Im saying its not a number.

Well if 1 cat exists, and the other doesnt, then your not calling 0 cats.
Your calling 2 cats. one that exists, and one that doesnt.

So I'm confused, you said a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose, which you said you can do with 0 (both in the quotes above) so other than the fact that it cannot be tangibly measured, is there anything that distinguishes 0 from your definition of a number?

 

[righthead]

Is 0 itself a number. You agreed with me. You said no, 0 is a place holder.

Because as far as I understand the english language, that applies to all numbers; all numbers are symbolic representations of abstract concepts. Placeholders, for those concepts.

Now, I repeat one last time.

Is i a number?
Is -1 a number?
is lim (x->0) x a number?
is Pi a number?

All are mere placeholders for value. That is what it means to be a number, as far as I can explain it in english.

And as was shown to you before, zero has value.

You never managed a logically sound response to this.

0 has a value of nil. Nothing.

It has a different rule then other numbers. Like infinity. Like Pi. Like "i".
They all have theyer own rules.
The only one i would say is a number would be Pi.
Its a number because you can tangably see it. You can use it.
Does it end? we dont know.

infinity is not a number. it cannot be seen. It cannot be recorded, it cannot be used to add, subtract, divide or multiply.

and i is just strange. Who knows what the f*ck it truely is.

i is the vertical axis of the horizontal number line

 

[kouriichi]

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

What?! People said the world was flat? How does that have any relevance to the discussion? Do you see yourself as some sort of noble thought pioneer here? Do you really think that no one has thought this before? Even after we told you that there was a time when people did not have an explicit zero, and then discovered the concept, and then their maths improved? Surely, if anything, the position that there is no such thing as zero is closer to the 'world is flat' notion - it's something people used to think beofre they learned more about the subject.

Seriously, I call troll. This is like arguing over the literal truth of the bible with a guy who says the bible is literally true because it says so in the bible (even though it doesn't).

No, im just saying people have been wrong. What if his "Fundamental branches of mathematics" were wrong?

Sure thats an entire nother descussion, but what if they were?
Were learning new things every day XD
How do we know hes idea is 100% infalable?

Ah, yes, the old "what if every one but me is wrong?" argument. Here's the thing - you can't overthrow established science without a reason, and in order to find a reason you need to understand the establishment position. Galileo did it. Newton did it. Einstein did it. They changed the world's ideas because they understood the forefront of their present-day learning, and tried to look further. You are not doing that. You are ignoring all evidence to the contrary, and clinging to "I can't have 0 things in my hand", even though you think you can have 'nothing in your hand' and 'zero is nothing'.

Let's put the burden of proof where it belongs - on your side. Seriously, why should we disregard mathematicians saying 0 is a number? Why is your opinion better informed than an informed one?

I mnot saying everyone but me is wrong.
Im not saying we shouldnt use 0.
And im definitly saying im the most informed person.
Im saying that 0 has no value. its value is nil.
Nil is nothing. Nothing is not a value, nothing is nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing
There by, 0 has no value by definition.
But this guy says, "0 has a value" when by it very deffinition, it cannot have a value, because it value doesnt exist.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Oh, and we know FOR A FACT that pi neither ends, nor repeats. There is a lot more to maths than you know.

And either it doesn't have a value, or that value is nil. ONE OR THE OTHER. You couldn't get away with contradicting yourself in debate class, don't do it here.

 

[kouriichi]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

wait, was that directed at me? xD

If so you cant measure nothing, because theres nothing to measure.

if there are 0 apples you cant measure the number of apples there are, thus you wouldent now it was truely 0 because you couldent accually measure the number of apples.

ow. i think i pulled something vital.

So from context I infer that your definition of a number is something that can be measured, is that correct?

More then that. Something tanganle. Something that can be givin, taken, or subject to change. It has to have value.

wouldn't that be an object rather than a number?

yes and no.
An object could go by that definition.
But it also couldent.

I mean, a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose.

Can you call your 0 cats to your lap?

No because there are no cats to call. You can call 10 imgainary cats to your lap, because to you, they are real. They are something you can call.

0 is nothing. Its value is just that. Nothing. you cant call nothing.

To call 0 cats would mean you are calling nothing! XD

not really fair to answer yes and no.

and aren't placeholders used for real purposes? and how do you differentiate between not calling the cat and calling a cat that is not there using simply the term nothing?

Yes, i not saying 0 itself has no real purpose. Im saying its not a number.

Well if 1 cat exists, and the other doesnt, then your not calling 0 cats.
Your calling 2 cats. one that exists, and one that doesnt.

So I'm confused, you said a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose, which you said you can do with 0 (both in the quotes above) so other than the fact that it cannot be tangibly measured, is there anything that distinguishes 0 from your definition of a number?

Yes, you can use 0 as a place holder, but not a number.
its real purpose as a number is to not exist to be used by definition.
It has a value of nil.
Nil means 0 or nothing.
Nothing doesnt exist.
So you cant use it as a number, because the object your useing 0 for is nothing.