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

[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.

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.

o3o accually, i was kinda forced out of school.
I was out sick for nearly 2 weeks, and the principal ((who might i add was a clearly racist nazi)) told me not to come back.
And when i did go back he had my uncle come and pick me up because i went to school to learn. XD

I made it 3/4ths the way to 12th.

im high school educated without a peice of paper that says im smart.

I also make 14.99 an hour. XD

Who says you need college to get a good job?

 

[righthead]

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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

 

[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.

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)

High praise sounds like a load of bullocks to me. And you are in no way capable of disproving this belief over the internet.
AAAnd there you go saying it's a number again. Whether your peculiar, closed-minded straw-grasping idea of what a number is accepts that it is a number or not is "cool story, bro."
And now, for your entertainment- behold!

I have here 1 horse! Not 2, not 0, 1 horse! Not only that folks, but it's right stone dead! 1 dead horse.
kou, you may now beat the dead horse to your heart's content.

 

[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.

o3o accually, i was kinda forced out of school.
I was out sick for nearly 2 weeks, and the principal ((who might i add was a clearly racist nazi)) told me not to come back.
And when i did go back he had my uncle come and pick me up because i went to school to learn. XD

I made it 3/4ths the way to 12th.

im high school educated without a peice of paper that says im smart.

I also make 14.99 an hour. XD

Who says you need college to get a good job?

No-one, and good for you.

But you do need an education to understand math. And to be frank, your lack of it clearly shows.

 

[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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

 

[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.

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.

o3o accually, i was kinda forced out of school.
I was out sick for nearly 2 weeks, and the principal ((who might i add was a clearly racist nazi)) told me not to come back.
And when i did go back he had my uncle come and pick me up because i went to school to learn. XD

I made it 3/4ths the way to 12th.

im high school educated without a peice of paper that says im smart.

I also make 14.99 an hour. XD

Who says you need college to get a good job?

No-one, and good for you.

But you do need an education to understand math. And to be frank, your lack of it clearly shows.

hey, i made it through 67-84% of the way through 12th!
I understand more then the math thats important.

when was the last time you had to find the square root of a number over 100!?!?
Im guessing 70-80% of all availble jobs out there dont require anything higher then a 9th grade education.

My job doesnt XD it requires hard work and interacting with people!!
And i can be very convincing to people over 40 if you catch my drift~ ;D

And no! i dont mean in a sexual way.

 

[righthead]

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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

 

[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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

 

[righthead]

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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

EDIT: tits mcgee?

 

[Dair1]

zero isn't a number, its a concept like infinity

 

[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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

Ah ha!!
So im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscule chance that i could be right!

^O^
I love you guys.
This was such a great ((roughly))12 hours together!

EDIT: yes. Tits Mcgee. She had huge knockers for a 16 yearold. She wasnt have the debator i or 1st chair was, but she was 2nd because everyone in class wanted a taste of her beach balls.

 

[Coldie]

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

No, the existing definitions of zero will not change. As far as I can recall, the basic arithmetic definition of zero changed only one property since VIIth century - 0/0 no longer equals 0.

The non-arithmetic definitions, however, will be only expanded as new theories are postulated, or displaced if some theories are superseded by more "interesting" theories.

 

[righthead]

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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

Ah ha!!
So im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscule chance that i could be right!

^O^
I love you guys.
This was such a great ((roughly))12 hours together!

I think I'm about the only one left. And to be fair, I have a bad habit of seeing all sides of an argument.

EDIT: and I could be wrong, there might be more than a designation of mathmatical convenience behind 0 being a number. Or it could be discovered in the future that there is proof that it is definitely a number

 

[kouriichi]

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

No, the existing definitions of zero will not change. As far as I can recall, the basic arithmetic definition of zero changed only one property since VIIth century - 0/0 no longer equals 0.

The non-arithmetic definitions, however, will be only expanded as new theories are postulated, or displaced if some theories are superseded by more "interesting" theories.

Im nto saying the definition will change.
But im saying the rule they changed could change again
They change things all the time. THey could change it again.

hence, im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscual chance i could be right xD

 

[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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

Ah ha!!
So im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscule chance that i could be right!

^O^
I love you guys.
This was such a great ((roughly))12 hours together!

I think I'm about the only one left. And to be fair, I have a bad habit of seeing all sides of an argument.

xD
nothing wrong with that though.
its what the less stubborn do.
My head is like a cement wall.
I use it to break down the flimsy brick walls others use to keep me out
((try not to read to much into that XD))

 

[Aethren]

Can you divide by zero?

No?

This case is closed.

 

[righthead]

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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

Ah ha!!
So im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscule chance that i could be right!

^O^
I love you guys.
This was such a great ((roughly))12 hours together!

I think I'm about the only one left. And to be fair, I have a bad habit of seeing all sides of an argument.

xD
nothing wrong with that though.
its what the less stubborn do.
My head is like a cement wall.
I use it to break down the flimsy brick walls others use to keep me out

my head is like a patch of ivy.
I use it to envelop the flimsy brick walls quickly and expand my territory

 

[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?

Well let me rephrase, I would never claim that zero has always been a number unless I see a proof that 0 is a number based on observable axioms. But yeah, if that can't be done then I guess half agree.

On the other hand the fundamentals of science and math are subject to more frequent overhauls than most people realize

So as i said early, when everyone dissagreed with, "The person who found the value of 0 could potentially be wrong?" i was more or less saying something like what your saying now? xD

It's unlikely, but until Einstein came along Newtons determinations about gravitation could not be refuted. I think it most likely that the definition of 0 would only get more rigorous, taking information as we have it in its current definition and adding other aspects as they are developed or discovered and found to apply to it.

but its possible? xD Thats the part im interested in. I wasnt 3 chair in my debate club for 2 and a half years for no reason! (( i wasnt second because of tits mcgee.... >.>))

put it this way. All known evidence points to the contrary, but there will always be things we haven't yet learned.

Ah ha!!
So im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscule chance that i could be right!

^O^
I love you guys.
This was such a great ((roughly))12 hours together!

I think I'm about the only one left. And to be fair, I have a bad habit of seeing all sides of an argument.

xD
nothing wrong with that though.
its what the less stubborn do.
My head is like a cement wall.
I use it to break down the flimsy brick walls others use to keep me out

my head is like a patch of ivy.
I use it to envelop the flimsy brick walls quickly and expand my territory

Until the dude with a cement head comes over and bashes the wall in 2?
Then you spread your spores onto the brick wall so your offspring will enjoy a different surface?

((ugh. that came out way dirtyer then i thought i would, but im to lazy to delete it. DX))

 

[HuntrRose]

probably linked to before but seriously, I can't be arsed going through all 16 pages...

I voted yes, and here is the reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

 

[Coldie]

Im nto saying the definition will change.
But im saying the rule they changed could change again
They change things all the time. THey could change it again.

hence, im definitly not wrong, but theres a miniscual chance i could be right xD

The only rules there are are the definitions. There will be new things added, but the existing postulates will stay put. Math is very formal and, unlike physics, they don't suddenly discover a fault in the foundation and rewrite the theory, they just add another theory on a different foundation.