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

[yoyo13rom]

I think you misunderstood me...

The OP was talking about how you have to go distances to end up at 0, so 0 doesn't count. However, my argument was that you can go a distance in one axis, and move 0 in another to invalidate his argument. To clarify, I think that zero is a number.

The only part I can think of that might have confused was the notation - (0,2) basically means going 0 units in the X axis and 2 in the Y.

Oops. I actually did misunderstood you. I mean I didn't read your other posts, and it was really late where I'm from, and there is a difference in notation when it comes to the comas, from place to place.

I mean in Romania 2 dollars and 35 cents is written this way: 2,35$ (although Americans write it with a dot, like this 2.35). And this always confuses me when it comes to numbers.
I mean when I saw 0,2 I didn't know if it was 2 tenths or just 0 east and 2 north.

Now that everything's clear, fine and dandy, I think we can put this thread to rest now.

Come on guys even if you think zero is not a number that's not such a big deal. It brings you 0 accomplishment points(although you might be better at maths if you know and understand that it is a number).

 

[StompinPaul]

Maybe someone has used this approach earlier in the thread and I missed it, but here goes.

One case where 0 =/= null is where distance is involved. Specifically, consider the relationship between an object (e.g. me) and an origin point (e.g. the location where I am sitting in my chair). Now, if I got up to go to the bathroom, I would have a displacement of <0 and be some distance away from origin. While I'm sitting in my chair though, my displacement is 0 which still represents a location relative to an origin point (in retrospect the analogy might work better simply by drawing a graph but oh well). This is different from something with a displacement of null from origin such as anger or comprehension(for example) which, being abstract concepts have no physical position of any kind (hence the displacement value of null from origin).
On this basis I say that 0 is a number and not simply a placeholder for null.

Also: while saying that there are 0 cats in an (empty) box is unnecessarily specific in most cases and we commonly just say that there is nothing in the box, 'nothing in the box' is actually a placeholder for too many statements to list including:
there are 0 cats in the box
there are 0 emus in the box
there are 0 children in the box
there are 0 items of food in the box
there are 0 insects in the box
there are 0 bricks in the box
etc. (Although these in fact cover larger branches of results, such as "there are 0 chipped bricks in the box", "there are 0 broken bricks in the box", "there are 0 circular bricks in the box" and so on)
Which of these are valuable depends of frame of reference. If I just want to know what's in the box, nothing is the only satisfactory answer. However, if I am looking for the number cats in boxes worldwide, I don't really care what's in the box beyond the number of cats, and so saying there are 0 cats in the box is (imperceptibly) better, or at least more efficient, then saying there is nothing in the box which gives me additional information that I don't need or want.

 

[MasterV]

I can't believe this thing has so many comments. Anyway, OP, your argument has flaws. The appleparticle thing at the beginning, no. Wrong. It's like saying you see a human arm dropped in a ditch and say "Oh look! There's a human thrown in there!" An arm isn't a complete human being as much as a particle isn't an apple.

As for your edit, 6 is the total distance travelled, but that 0 in the end is the difference between your starting and finishing positions, which is measured by the NUMBER 0, NOT the digit. Because it's the numeric VALUE of none. Which is the (Distance forth)-(distance back)=0. So yeah, 0 is a number and your logic is flawed.

 

[Maze1125]

{} is a little thing called the empty set. The empty set is by far, the only way to represent absolute nothingness in mathematics. It is something which has no value. It's cardinality (the number of numbers in the set) is zero. So in other words, it has no numbers in it.

You need to take a little more Set Theory.
Once you use sets to construct the natural numbers, 0 is defined to be the empty set.

An analogy for this would be matter, matter would be positive; and anti-matter would be negative. (Although, in terms of existence; there are only two sides - positive and negative, there isn't a "Zero").

A photon is its own anti-particle.
As such, in this analogy, -p = p, and so p = 0.

So, if matter is positive and anti-matter negative, photons are zero.

 

[El Poncho]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

 

[Salmaras]

Zero is a value, and theresfore is a number, even if it is merely the number that denotes emptiness

 

[Maze1125]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

 

[El Poncho]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

 

[Maze1125]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

"In mathematics, natural numbers are the ordinary counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... (sometimes zero is also included) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number]."

 

[El Poncho]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

"In mathematics, natural numbers are the ordinary counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... (sometimes zero is also included) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number]."

Ok Thanks

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

yes 0 is a number, some ancient mathmatic systems don't actually take 0 into account, you start wtih 1 and go from there, A relative position is thrown off by this, say you had to use a combination, if there is no zero, then thats one less number in the combination.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

"0" is the numerical representation of nothing. Of course as beings that exsist we cannot comprehend what nothingness (true nothingness) is.

A point made earlier stated that if I traveled in one direction then traveled the same distance in the opposite direction then mathmaticlly I have not traveled at all (according to the number zero). However when working out sums like this you do not work out the milage rather the distance. I.e traveling 3 miles east then traveling -3 miles east will equal a total distance of 6 miles rather than a distance of 0 miles.

To say that 0 is not a number is to say (by the same logic) that negative numbers are not numbers because they can not be accurately represented in the real world.

 

[starwarsgeek]

I claim that zero is more of a concept than a number

Yes, zero is a concept.
So is one, seventy-nine, negative fourty-eight, i, the fifth root of thirteen, and infinity. All numbers are concepts.

Say for example you have an apple. You then eat the apple. You still have one apple, it's just in a different locale.

A constant amount of matter does not disprove zero.

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...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.

Using the English language to phrase something differently does not disprove zero. I could say I have several apples in my room. Does that mean positive numbers aren't really numbers because I used the word "several"?

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?

Your distance problem does not disprove zero.

Alright, let's say you live at Point A and work at Point B. The distance between the two points is 3 miles, but once you return home, you are currently on point A (thus, 0 miles away from it). Distance from a point (0) and total distance traveled (6) are not the same thing.

Your argument is invalid. This is not philosophy, nor personal preference. Nothing is up for debate. It's math, it has a clear answer.

(In Halo announcer voice)
Topic......over

 

[carpathic]

"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."

Wrong.

There is zero anything between electrons and the nucleus of an atom for instance.

You are getting the abstract notion (meaning what zero represents) mixed up with what Zero actually "is".

 

[ikey]

Alright, thanks. I had a moment of ignorance.
I needed to be wrong for once, I haven't in a while and I was getting arrogant.

 

[oktalist]

Probably doesn't help much that a sarcastic statement amongst rational statements (regardless of correctness) does little to help in making a point

But that's my favourite kind of making a point!

If the worst thing I'm called in the space of a day is troll or child, I'd call it a good day but public treatment for me's largely been worse than online, something I hope very few would ever have to experience.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Alright, thanks. I had a moment of ignorance.
I needed to be wrong for once, I haven't in a while and I was getting arrogant.

You, sir, are awesome - it's rare for people on the internet to make any sort of genuine admission about any current knowledge limitations, let alone be this humble about conceding a point. You have restored my faith in internet debate as discussion, not competition. We're all wrong sometimes, but few of us are as open to accepting that as you are. It's a healthy attitude to have.

The good news is that you know the correct answer, but more importantly you understand why it's correct. You get to win this debate next time (if this ever comes up again in your life....).

 

[Lukeje]

There is zero anything between electrons and the nucleus of an atom for instance.

Ermm... the electron is often between the electron and the nucleus of an atom; it's stretched out into a probability distribution. There may be angles at which there is zero electron density, but there there will be `zero point energy'. Basically, empty space isn't empty. Particles and antiparticles are being constantly spontaneously created and annihilated. Yes, quantum field theory is weird.

 

[Kais86]

All numbers are placeholders, concepts, that's what numbers are. That's basically their definition.

Not really. 1 isnt a place holder.
1 can be put on its own.
There can be 1 cat in the 1 hat xD
There can be 1 fish, 2 fish, a single red fish, or a single blue fish.

But there cant be 0 red fish. Because the act of labeling them 0 means that they dont exist to be labled.

None of this is really as important as the fact that 0 is a number. Numbers themselves are placeholders for actual objects or concepts. You can't actually own a number and you can't really use them as anything except concepts unless you are using them to represent an amount of items. Even if the concept is that of the number itself.

 

[Krafty_Krocodile]

zero doesn't know what he's counting foooooooooooour (sorry crap x4 joke/pun) anyways it helps to do maths that way so I would say yes.