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

[Coldie]

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

They are calling it (Pi) something (irrational) because they have demonstrated that calling it "something else" (rational) would contradict previously established facts and is, therefore, unequivocally wrong.
Thanks for playing, try again.

 

[randomsix]

you would never have givin someone 0 $100 bills. Have you ever? Will you ever? Your using an completely illogical scenario for your arguement. This scenario would never happen. If it did, i wouldent associate "0" with what you gave me. i would associate "Nothing" with that you gave me.

You're arguing about linguistic convention. We would not say, "I gave you 1 $20 bill and 0 $100 bills," because it generally goes against linguistic convention. We do not feel the need to use '0' to signify the absence of quantity; we have other more common expressions. However, it would still be a perfectly valid statement, as '1' $20 bill was given and '0' $100 bills were given. It'd just be a little weird.

Let's put this another way. Pretend for a second that the word 'no' replaced 'zero' as part of our numerical system. The symbol '0' is no longer pronounced "ze-ro", but simply "no." Suddenly, everything sounds a little more like regular English. "I gave you 'one' $20 bill and 'no' $100 bills." or "I gave you 'one' $20 bill and 'no' kittens." If I were to replace to words 'one' and 'no' with their respective numerical symbols, we'd come get original expressions again: "I gave you 1 $20 bill and 0 $100 bills."

Simply put, we could easily have a language where 'zero' has practical value. There's nothing contradictory/wrong about it. It's just that English didn't evolve that way.

Because 0 has no value, you cant stick it to something, because that something becomes nothing.

The value of 0 is nothing. Thus 0 is nothing. Which kinda means you cannot logically stick it to something. 0 people would never exist. it would just be 0.

Look at it this way. If a-b=c why are you trying to say a-b=a-b. Doggydoor - person = doggydoor. Not doggydoor - person.

Now onto the second point. Logically, it would not be wrong for me to say, "I gave you 1 $20 bill and 0 $100 dollar bills." It would not be wrong for me to say, "I gave you 1 $20 bill, 0 kittens, and 0 puppies." '0' is a mathematical sign that symbolizes the lack of quantity, while all the other real numbers are merely symbols for various other quantities. Those two sentences are logically valid. What's happening is that we're just acknowledging something did not happen.

'a-b=a-b' is a true statement. It may be a trivial statement, but it is true nonetheless. Conventionally, we say 'a-b=a', but there is nothing logically invalid with 'a-b=a-b'.

What im trying to say is, its pointless.

0=nothing correct? We agree on that.

That imply there was nothing to begin with. But there is always something to begin with. You never begin with 0, and you can never end with 0.

You start off with $100, you get mugged. What do you have left? Your life, your hand, and the wallet you had the $100 in.

You cant have nothing. "Nothing" doesnt exist in our universe. So if 0=nothing, you cant have 0. Its that simple. Nothing is the lack of something. You cant have 0. you can have nothing, but not 0.

0 is a place holder. its there so fill in where there is not a number.

You can never have a concrete example of 0 because it represents a void/lack of. But 0 can be a number because numbers are abstract ideas and do not require physical implementation to prove their existence.

But by that logic, anything people want to exist can.
its an idea. its not real. You can see 1 of something. you can count 1 of something. That makes it a number.

Now do me a favor, and try counting all the 0 objects around you. You cant count 0, because it cannot exist. The point of it being a number, is that it isnt a number. Its the void where a number should be.

You miss the point. Numbers are abstract and do not need to be physically identifiable. Take any non-integer for example. You cannot point to anything as an example of said fraction. Even something as simple as 1/2 does not exist except by definition in an abstract quality because there will always be some error to either side.

You can look up a proof for why it is literally impossible for anything in the physical world to be exactly any number, unless its basic parts are quantized (see electrons). This will probably be of the form of how it is impossible to randomly choose any number (say six, for example) out of any given continuous part of the number line because no matter how much you zoom in, you can always zoom in more, and there are always an infinite number of points between the two you can see.

Based on your logic, and according to this proof, any non-integer numbers are no longer numbers.

Edit:
If this is not true, then 0 is a number.

I believe that, based on your argument of what a number is, unless you are willing to throw out all non-integers, this is /thread.

No, my logic is 0 cannot be a number because its value is nothing. it cannot be shown.
You can show half of an object. you cant show 1/4 an object. you cannot show 0 of an object.

if you try to show someone 0 kittens in 1 box. your showing them x units of air in 1 box.

0 cannot exist because its value CANNOT BE SHOWN. xD
you cannot lable something 0. and if you did, youd be labling 1 of something 0. meaning you would be lieing.

Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot be used. 0=nothing. thereby, by logic, 0 cannot exist. it cannot be used as a number. you can use any number as a value. 0 has a value of nothing. it has no value, meaning it cannot be used as a number, because there is always a value of something.

The only reason we use it is because its smarter then leaving a space at the end of everything, and easyer then puting nothing.

Which is best?

A:"2-2=2-2"
B:"2-2=0"
C:"2-2=nothing"
D:"2-2=chicken chicken taco"

Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.

You misunderstand what a number is. "Numbers are abstract and do not need to be physically identifiable" so 0's inability to exist in the physically tangible way you want does not preclude its being a number.

 

[HijiriOni]

0 Historically is the youngest number. It's more of an abstraction. Like how we declare Black and White Colors but really they are both technically just shades, neither are colors.

0 is an abstraction in that it's the absence of numbers. In the past people never understood the idea of 0, it was either you had 1 goat or no goats. Not 0 goats.

But by modern mathematical standards, yeah it's a number. As much as Black and White are Colors. Only people with really knowledgeable definitions on their abstract components could provide adequate arguments as to why they aren't.

 

[Zacharine]

"i" is imaginary. XD i mean, "So what is it?" litterally.

i is a useful concept, and a defined number.

So what is Pi, which is equally conceptual-only defined number?

What is -1, as it has no real-world examples?

its cant be used because its imaginary. its fake. its more then an abstarct mathematical unit.

The same applies to all numbers.

But of course, amidst all your logical fallacies and lack of understanding, you can't see it.

Still can't answer my question of lack of electrical current in a circuit being meaningful?

And yes, 0's value ((or lack there of)) is a circul logic.

So glad that you understand.

. But thats not because of me, thats because of the value YOU gave it.

And right here you demonstrate you don't.

Arguing you is an excercise in futility. All you answers are to some degree or another self-contradictory, Red Herrings, No True Scotsmans, Strawmen, or just plain factually wrong. When you define something even is the vaguest of terms, those definitions have no utility.

Go finish high-school, and then we can continue.

 

[kouriichi]

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

They are calling it (Pi) something (irrational) because they have demonstrated that calling it "something else" (rational) would contradict previously established facts and is, therefore, unequivocally wrong.
Thanks for playing, try again.

What whats the proof its irrational?
What is the fact that says it has to be irrational?

 

[randomsix]

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

They are calling it (Pi) something (irrational) because they have demonstrated that calling it "something else" (rational) would contradict previously established facts and is, therefore, unequivocally wrong.
Thanks for playing, try again.

What whats the proof its irrational?
What is the fact that says it has to be irrational?

Because everything that is not rational is irrational by definition. So if it's not rational, it must be irrational.

 

[Nylarathotep]

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

They are calling it (Pi) something (irrational) because they have demonstrated that calling it "something else" (rational) would contradict previously established facts and is, therefore, unequivocally wrong.
Thanks for playing, try again.

What whats the proof its irrational?
What is the fact that says it has to be irrational?

Awesome, back just in time to laugh at the noob.
lololololol

 

[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.

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

Here's how the logic works:

say you have two statements A and B. A typical proven statement takes the form "if A, then B"
example "If I wear a hat today I will leave it somewhere." (this statement is not provable given current knowledge.) Say however that it is difficult or even impossible to show such a thing. A simple version of what is does would say "Assume A and not B, then not A". This is essentially what is done. This is a contradiction so something has to change in the argument. Since A is the premise and not B is assumed, only not B can be negated so the true statement is "if A, then not not B" which (this is a simplification but) is equivalent to "if A, then B"

That's the basic premise, the whole setup and payoff is a bit more complicated, but hopefully that gives a picture of what's going on

 

[drdamo]

0 isn't a number in fact, its a concept made in a number by vote of majority.
Why? Because everything we come up with as laws of physics and such are man-made and none of them are actual facts. The opposite hasn't been proven yet is the only real reason why its all accepted as the "truth".

Innocent untill proven guilty is the case here.
It doesn't hurt us calling it a number, so why bother making a fuss about it?

Yet does that make it an actual number? Logically: No, yet without structure humans are lost, so we simply say it is, to avoid total chaos.

 

[kouriichi]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

 

[kouriichi]

0 isn't a number in fact, its a concept made in a number by vote of majority.
Why? Because everything we come up with as laws of physics and such are man-made and none of them are actual facts. The opposite hasn't been proven yet is the only real reason why its all accepted as the "truth".

Innocent untill proven guilty is the case here.
It doesn't hurt us calling it a number, so why bother making a fuss about it?

Yet does that make it an actual number? Logically: No, yet without structure humans are lost, so we simply say it is, to avoid total chaos.

I love your explination
i tryed to say it along time ago but no one listens.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

By your logic, I can't say Sweden exists either, because I've never personally seen it. However, since everyone who knows anything about Sweden says it is there, I will trust their opinion and incorporate their insights into my world view. Why can't you do the same for 0?

Seriously, did 0 hurt you as a child?

 

[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.

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

Here's how the logic works:

say you have two statements A and B. A typical proven statement takes the form "if A, then B"
example "If I wear a hat today I will leave it somewhere." (this statement is not provable given current knowledge.) Say however that it is difficult or even impossible to show such a thing. A simple version of what is does would say "Assume A and not B, then not A". This is essentially what is done. This is a contradiction so something has to change in the argument. Since A is the premise and not B is assumed, only not B can be negated so the true statement is "if A, then not not B" which (this is a simplification but) is equivalent to "if A, then B"

That's the basic premise, the whole setup and payoff is a bit more complicated, but hopefully that gives a picture of what's going on

Basically they say "here's some facts we know. Assume pi is rational. some logical steps are taken. the negation of one of the facts mentioned in the first sentence. Therefore pi is irrational."

 

[righthead]

0 isn't a number in fact, its a concept made in a number by vote of majority.
Why? Because everything we come up with as laws of physics and such are man-made and none of them are actual facts. The opposite hasn't been proven yet is the only real reason why its all accepted as the "truth".

Innocent untill proven guilty is the case here.
It doesn't hurt us calling it a number, so why bother making a fuss about it?

Yet does that make it an actual number? Logically: No, yet without structure humans are lost, so we simply say it is, to avoid total chaos.

I love your explination
i tryed to say it along time ago but no one listens.

The problem with that is that using that argument anything we cannot directly observe can be refuted.

 

[Nylarathotep]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

0's value (funny you should say it has a value, like all numbers) is contained within the quotation marks:
""
Or, if you want to be pissy and say I didn't answer your question (which I did [wanna argue about that?]) how about this:
0 = 0

 

[Zacharine]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

Are we talking of basic algebra, set theory, propositional logic, abstract algebra, lattice theory, category theory, recursion theory or something else?

EDIT: how do you define value, so that we can definitively and finally answer this question.

 

[righthead]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

before I answer that, I have to ask for a definition of value, or better a demonstration of the value of 1

 

[kouriichi]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

0's value (funny you should say it has a value, like all numbers) is contained within the quotation marks:
""
Or, if you want to be pissy and say I didn't answer your question (which I did [wanna argue about that?]) how about this:
0 = 0

Nope.
As defined by the others, and theyer mathemation, its definition is nil.

What is the defintion of nil?

 

[Nylarathotep]

One last question. If you can answer this i'll give it all up, and present you all the coveted "You win this drug on debate trophy". XD

What is 0's value.
Thats the only question i'll ask,
and i only want your final answer.

0's value (funny you should say it has a value, like all numbers) is contained within the quotation marks:
""
Or, if you want to be pissy and say I didn't answer your question (which I did [wanna argue about that?]) how about this:
0 = 0

Nope.
As defined by the others, and theyer mathemation, its definition is nil.

What is the defintion of nil?

I answered your question. Where's my damned trophy?

 

[Coldie]

What whats the proof its irrational?
What is the fact that says it has to be irrational?

Read the wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational] that was linked above, it presents at least two full proofs via reductio ad absurdum.

[small]It must be noted, however, that neither The Escapist, any member of The Escapist staff or community, nor any affiliates of The Escapist can be held responsible if you fail to comprehend, understand, or read the article or any proofs therein. Furthermore, none of the aforementioned parties are in any way, manner, or form obligated to provide an education required to comprehend, understand, and/or read the above article. Void where prohibited. Not for children under 13.[/small]