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

[righthead]

I got something to blow OP's mind right here.

In the centigrade measurement of temperature, 0C is when water freezes. It does not however, mean "no heat at all"; that belongs to ~-273C (or 0 Kelvin using a difference scale). It's just another point of measurement on the scale that let's us use a base 10 numeral system (Decimals).

Considering that a number is just a representation of a value, and it can be used to represent a value within a domain, 0 is a number. Even if it represents nothingness, it's still representing something. Unless you are using a domain where nothingness is an impossibility, but that's not every scenario.

fun fact: 0 fahrenheit is used to represent the temperature at which a solution of salt in water freezes.

 

[silvermorning624]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

 

[kouriichi]

Lets make this even simpler even tho this might have been said before:

If 0 is an actual number, then how come it is still impossible to devide another number by 0?
As said: Its a placeholder for the lack of either a negative or a positive number.

(sidenote: Wiki != truth != God; This is the first thing they said on my college: "If Your only source is Wiki, then you are not allowed to use it")

They dont want my defintions of general things.
and its all theyer using. Fight fire with fire so it burns faster in your favor.

 

[Nylarathotep]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

 

[kouriichi]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

So then you agree with me? xD 100%?

I like how i thought everyone was against me, and now there are 2 people with more or less the exact same view as me.

 

[kouriichi]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

 

[Nylarathotep]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

No, but it must be wonderful to think so.

 

[kouriichi]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

No, but it must be wonderful to think so.

So your saying you dont agree that 0 is a place holder and not a number?
I mean, they only had to completely rewrite the rule of what a number is to include 0 as one. xD

 

[Zacharine]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

So then you agree with me? xD 100%?

I like how i thought everyone was against me, and now there are 2 people with more or less the exact same view as me.

please name these two people

Because I fear you erraneously think I'm one of them.

 

[righthead]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

No, but it must be wonderful to think so.

So your saying you dont agree that 0 is a place holder and not a number?
I mean, they only had to completely rewrite the rule of what a number is to include 0 as one. xD

Or maybe they rewrote the rule of what a placeholder is.

 

[Nylarathotep]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

No, but it must be wonderful to think so.

So your saying you dont agree that 0 is a place holder and not a number?
I mean, they only had to completely rewrite the rule of what a number is to include 0 as one. xD

Stop asking for confirmation of what I'm not saying- you seem to only read what you want to read anyway.
I mean, even if they did have to rewrite the "rule" of what a number is to include 0 as one- and by joe they did just that- so it is a number.

 

[kouriichi]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

So then you agree with me? xD 100%?

I like how i thought everyone was against me, and now there are 2 people with more or less the exact same view as me.

please name these two people

silvermorning624 and drdamo.
Sure they dont see it exactly the same way i do, letter for letter,
but they both agree 0 is not technically a number.

Sliver agrees its a place holder, not a number.
And drdamo has posted 2 ((maybe)) 3 different reasons why he doesnt belive 0 is a real number.

 

[kouriichi]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

So, you're still being intentionally obtuse after saying that 0 is a number?
And yes I was- BECAUSE it's a placeholder, it's a number.
Your favourite source of absolute truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder

I dont read number anywhere in there.
infact ctrl+F doesnt find the word number anywhere on the page.

It might fit "Free variables and bound variables, symbols that will later be replaced by some literal string", but that doesnt make it a number. That makes it a symbol or variable.

True, it doesn't say "number" anywhere. It does however say, and if you can't see this you must be very blind, "mathematics." If you can mentally separate numbers and mathematics into two different but jovial fields of abstract areas of the spoken and written language- I suppose that deserves some kind of praise.

In a bad way.

Bad praise is still agreement right? xD

No, but it must be wonderful to think so.

So your saying you dont agree that 0 is a place holder and not a number?
I mean, they only had to completely rewrite the rule of what a number is to include 0 as one. xD

Stop asking for confirmation of what I'm not saying- you seem to only read what you want to read anyway.
I mean, even if they did have to rewrite the "rule" of what a number is to include 0 as one- and by joe they did just that- so it is a number.

Well by the rules, yes, by definition, no.
They more or less said, "Its a number because we say it is."
"the definition of number has been extended over the years to include such numbers as zero, negative numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, and complex numbers."
So really Pi, "i" and a dozen other numbers wernt numbers until they said they were.

you ever seen that episode of robot chicken where the scientist goes mad with power and claims bullets are made of marshmellows? I kinda see it as the same thing happening with that.

-3- and i'll have you know i enjoy high praise and confermation from others. (debate club)

 

[JoshGod]

well sir if your going to argue that 0 is not a number because as you said

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.

then you there for have to say that 1 is not a number it is 0.9999999999999999 and that is true.

explanation of why tis true;
x=0.999999999
therefore
10x=9.999999999
if you subtract 1x from 10x then you get
9x=9
simpified
x=1

therefore sir i have confused myself, well done i would take my hat of to you, if only i was wearing one.

 

[righthead]

I believe that 0 is a number, but I would never claim that zero has always been a number.

 

[Zacharine]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

So then you agree with me? xD 100%?

I like how i thought everyone was against me, and now there are 2 people with more or less the exact same view as me.

please name these two people

silvermorning624 and drdamo.
Sure they dont see it exactly the same way i do, letter for letter,
but they both agree 0 is not technically a number.

Sliver agrees its a place holder, not a number.
And drdamo has posted 2 ((maybe)) 3 different reasons why he doesnt belive 0 is a real number.

great, so now I have three persons to lol at.

Seriously, I got to ask you, what is your mathematical background? Have you even finished mandatory schooling with all the mistakes you are making?

Have you got any education in logic, axioms, or the foundational principles of mathematics, what with you saying golden stuff like "they only had to completely rewrite the rule of what a number is to include 0 as one." as proof of your lack of understanding.

 

[kouriichi]

I believe that 0 is a number, but I would never claim that zero has always been a number.

xD
so you half agree with me then?
That it wasnt a number to begin with until they re-wrote the book to make it one?

 

[righthead]

well sir if your going to argue that 0 is not a number because as you said

then you there for have to say that 1 is not a number it is 0.9999999999999999 and that is true.

explanation of why tis true;
x=0.999999999
therefore
10x=9.999999999
if you subtract 1x from 10x then you get
9x=9
simpified
x=1

therefore sir i have confused myself, well done i would take my hat of to you, if only i was wearing one.

This only works if the string of 9s in 0.999999999 is infinitely long.