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

[kouriichi]

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.

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

 

[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?

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.

so is that a no?

 

[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.

0 has a value of nil. Nothing.

On what basis do you say this, when the proof to contrary stand in the formula presented above?

To say: zero has no value, so zero represents nothing, and nothing has no value, and so zero has no value.

That is a circular argument.

It has a different rule then other numbers.

No it does not. It has the same arithmetic axioms that stand as basis for any number.

The only one i would say is a number would be Pi.

Then I reject you definition for 'number' as useless and archaic

For example, if you cannot handle lim (x->0) x as a number, you cannot handle integral calculus.

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

everyone with highschool math education knows what it is. i squared is -1

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Here's a good example for everyone. I think this may be a major point too.

Say you travel 3 miles north to work (+3). After 8 hours, you travel 3 miles south back to home(-3).

Where did you end up (relative to starting point)? 0 miles away
How far away did you travel? 0 miles away
What was the total distance traveled? 6 miles away

You have traveled 6 miles, yet your position in space is 0, because you returned to your starting location. 6 != 0 yet you traveled both 6 miles and 0 miles. Can everyone understand where I'm coming from now?

Of course, given that there are no fixed points on space and you travelled on a globe that is revolving at 900 mph, you didn't travel 0 miles. If you had travelled 0 miles in total, you'd actually be in space at the moment. Equally you're mixing Cartesian points with Euclidian points; so you can say that 32C=32F but also that 0F=17.7(recurring)C.

You can rehash the argument that 0=Nothing as much as you wish, but the fact that 0 can be used as a number for purposes other than strict physical measurement renders that argument null.

 

[Blanko2]

what the dealio, you can just prove zero is a number easy as pie,
if -1 is moving backwards and 1 is moving forward zero is not moving.
slambalam.
vectors to the rescue?

 

[schiZm22]

I would have to argue directly against the claim that you cannot to operations with infinite. Infinite is a particularly great concept to work with, especially when dealing with infinite series. As well as zero, if said series happens to, you know, converge to zero. And you can't argue against pi and e being numbers, since they are plain and simple values, they just happen to be irrational non-integers.

 

[righthead]

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.

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.


Im saying its value doesnt exist.

we know that pi does not end because we have assumed that it does and using logic and established mathematical theorems arrived at a contradiction.

 

[righthead]

what the dealio, you can just prove zero is a number easy as pie,
if -1 is moving backwards and 1 is moving forward zero is not moving.
slambalam.
vectors to the rescue?

If you're going to argue the 0 is really nothing this is what should be dealt with, not the stupid 0 cats argument.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

 

[Coldie]

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?

Fascinating. "Fundamental branches of mathematics" cannot be "wrong". Once you have postulated a non-contradictory set of Axioms to define your "branch", you can freely operate within the limits imposed by these postulates. Mathematics does not work like physics or geography, it does not explore the Universe. Math creates its own universe and explores that. And all the "fundamental branches of mathematics" use the number zero and its null value without any "0 catapplepigs" problems.

 

[Jory]

I claim that zero is more of a concept than a number. It is a placeholder to theorize the space between positive and negative.

it's not just a concept it's reality

The only time you can have zero of something is in a vacuum (space). And even then, you technically would call it "a vacuum", implying that there is "one" vacuum.

Say for example you have an apple. You then eat the apple. You still have one apple, it's just in a different locale. There is always at least 1 of something (that actually exists of course), even if it is not within your present sight. There are no planes in my front driveway, but there ARE planes somewhere else.

This has nothing to do with it, to count anything you need rules to determine WHAT you are counting. In your first example do you have 1 apple? or do you have 35.6 million apples in the UK? Does this make 1 any less of a number?

And you say, "There is always at least 1 of something (that actually exists of course)". So why does it have to exist?

That's like saying, there are always at least 2 of something (that actually come in pairs of course)

Of course, I understand the other side of the argument. If you don't have any apples around, then there must be 0 apples right? This starts bringing in semantics. Yes, I have 0 apples in my room at this current time. No, that does NOT make 0 a number. I can also say no apples are in my room. Is 'no' a number? Absolutely not.

If you had one apple, you could say I have AN apple. Does that mean "AN" is a number?

"no" in this context if a word describing the number.

Plus, consider the possibility that there may be, ONE SINGLE PARTICLE of an apple in my room, SOMEWHERE. Just one. It may be in the air, on my desk, on the wall, whatever. That's just .000000000000000000000000000000000001 apples or whatever, not zero.

So exactly how many particles of apple makes 1.000000000000 apples?

This just doesn't even begin to make sense. Apples are discrete objects and they're not all the same size.

If you give them a defined weight, then one apple could be 1.12400000 AU (Apple units)
while another could be 1.3AU

So you could then never have one apple.

You might have a good argument but your analogies are so flawed it's hard to be convinced.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

People it's pointless arguing with kouriichi since he doesn't understand what math is and he's not willing to change his opinion. Arguing with him is like arguing with a table, you're just not going to get anywhere.

 

[righthead]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

and since it's not rational it can't end, because any ending decimal can be written as the digits number value over some power of 10

 

[kouriichi]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

"This proof[4] uses the characterization of ð as the smallest positive zero of the sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum."


Reductio ad absurdum.
Definition: is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

So basically theyer saying Pi has a value because it takes to long to find it.

Im not wrong yet

 

[kouriichi]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

and since it's not rational it can't end, because any ending decimal can be written as the digits number value over some power of 10

Im just gunna copy paste from my other post XD

"This proof[4] uses the characterization of ð as the smallest positive zero of the sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum."

Reductio ad absurdum.
Definition: is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

So basically theyer saying Pi has a value because it takes to long to find it.

 

[righthead]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

"This proof[4] uses the characterization of ð as the smallest positive zero of the sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum."


Reductio ad absurdum.
Definition: is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

So basically theyer saying Pi has a value because it takes to long to find it.

Im not wrong yet

no they're saying that it's irrational because to assume it's rational would mean something that's obviously false.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Yes you are wrong, you just don't know it.

 

[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.

On what basis do you say this, when the proof to contrary stand in the formula presented above?

To say: zero has no value, so zero represents nothing, and nothing has no value, and so zero has no value.

That is a circular argument.

It has a different rule then other numbers.

No it does not. It has the same arithmetic axioms that stand as basis for any number.

The only one i would say is a number would be Pi.

Then I reject you definition for 'number' as useless and archaic

For example, if you cannot handle lim (x->0) x as a number, you cannot handle integral calculus.

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

everyone with highschool math education knows what it is. i squared is -1

"i" is imaginary. XD i mean, "So what is it?" litterally. its cant be used because its imaginary. its fake. its more then an abstarct mathematical unit.

And yes, 0's value ((or lack there of)) is a circul logic. But thats not because of me, thats because of the value YOU gave it. You say 0 has a value of nil. Not me.

 

[kouriichi]

No we dont.
Have we reached the end of pi?
Then how do we know it continues forever? xD
You cant know. you can guess it does, but you will never know.

And im saying it technically doesnt have a value.
You say the value is nil right?
nil is nothing. nothing is the absence of anything.

You say it has a value, when by definition it doesnt.

Im saying its value doesnt exist.

pi is an irrational number therefore it goes on forever. It's proven fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

you say nil doesn't have a value, then define value.

Seriously I'm getting the vibe that you just don't want to admit you're wrong.

"This proof[4] uses the characterization of ð as the smallest positive zero of the sine function. As in many proofs of irrationality, the argument proceeds by reductio ad absurdum."


Reductio ad absurdum.
Definition: is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.

So basically theyer saying Pi has a value because it takes to long to find it.

Im not wrong yet

no they're saying that it's irrational because to assume it's rational would mean something that's obviously false.

So theyer calling it something because theyer afraid they'll be wrong if they call it something else?

 

[harvz]

zero is a representation of a lack nothing else.
0+1 = 1 right, 1-0 = 1, i just performed calculations on it arithmetically, hence its a number.