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

[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

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))

I wouldn't think the growing'd stop just cause the wall breaks but it's a pretty wierd analogy anyway.

 

[righthead]

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.

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

Buuuuuuut, they could?
possibly hundreds ((im hoping)) of years from now ofcourse, when they have a more advanced way to calculate.

 

[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))

I wouldn't think the growing'd stop just cause the wall breaks but it's a pretty wierd analogy anyway.

Weird is what most of the people at The Escapist do best x)

 

[jowo96]

I understand what you mean but a number is simply a representation of a value, in the case of zero the value is nothing, so yes it is a number.

 

[righthead]

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.

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

Buuuuuuut, they could?
possibly hundreds ((im hoping)) of years from now ofcourse, when they have a more advanced way to calculate.

and monkeys could fly out of my butt. But seriously, there could evolve flying monkeys and a makeshift nest could be made from my by then fossilized butt. I figure the odds of each happening are about the same.

 

[Zacharine]

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!?!?

Six years, roughly.

Though I did have to solve this:

yesterday. Took me roughly 40 minutes.

which one would you say is harder?

It deals with the chemical potential of a solvent in a binary ideal liquid.

Im guessing 70-80% of all availble jobs out there dont require anything higher then a 9th grade education.

While this might very well be true, it doesn't mean that those 70-80% of people are educated enough to discuss math on axiomatic or definitional level, much less do it correctly or have the necessary knowledge to even evaluate the validity of a mathematical argument.

And i can be very convincing to people over 40 if you catch my drift

And being convincing, and being correct in something you have only basic education in and don't use on a daily basis, are two entirely different things.

So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that you have no basis to discuss the matter of zero being a number or not.

 

[Coldie]

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

They certainly tried. Take the classic case of Euclidian Geometry vs. Aspiring Mathemathians - the 5th postulate, Parallel, was the subject of much debate. People tried to prove that it was superficial and could be derived from other axioms, but ultimately failed. In the end, they created new, non-Euclidian Geometries, by replacing the 5th Postulate with various different ones.

You can try to mess with zero, but all you'd achieve would be "non-zerodian arithmetics" with little to no practical application - and the original zero will still be there.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

Buuuuuuut, they could?
possibly hundreds ((im hoping)) of years from now ofcourse, when they have a more advanced way to calculate.

and monkeys could fly out of my butt. But seriously, there could evolve flying monkeys and a makeshift nest could be made from my by then fossilized butt. I figure the odds of each happening are about the same.

monkeys make nests o3o
And do they have to have wings or would jetpacks be ok?
becasue we have nesting monkeys and jetpacks in this day and age.
Think about who advanced flying nesting monkeys would be by the time your fossilized

I accept the challange. First we need your butt bone, 100 tons of dirt, a jetpack, a monkey, and a cryogenic freezer!!

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Mathematics is a very usefull and abstract system that can be used to describe, predict or shape the world we live in. However, that does not mean that even if the concept of zero wouldn't actually exist in physics (which is also an interesting discussion, by the way) it doesn't say anything about math. And in the abstract man-made world of mathematics, zero is indeed a (real, rational and integral) number.

 

[Runswithscissors]

Yeah, I'm with the concept side. Makes sense.
But I think I had this discussion with a friend where they brought up something like "but that doesn't mean it's not important". So i'm saying that zero means literally nothing, not implying that it means figuratively nothing. Or the other way round. Does your brain hurt as much as mine does right now?

 

[righthead]

It certainly is unprecedented, anyway. if they change the foundation, they make sure it works with everything else that's being done already.

They certainly tried. Take the classic case of Euclidian Geometry vs. Aspiring Mathemathians - the 5th postulate, Parallel, was the subject of much debate. People tried to prove that it was superficial and could be derived from other axioms, but ultimately failed. In the end, they created new, non-Euclidian Geometries, by replacing the 5th Postulate with various different ones.

You can try to mess with zero, but all you'd achieve would be "non-zerodian arithmetics" with little to no practical application - and the original zero will still be there.

That is what's likely. It'd take something pretty wildly out of left field to cause any other type of change, like "How the hell did we get all this math wrong" sort of wild. Cause without 0 half or more of the higher level mathematics would have to be reworked. But anyway, I'ma sleep now.

 

[kouriichi]

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!?!?

Six years, roughly.

Though I did have to solve this:

yesterday. Took me roughly 40 minutes.

which one would you say is harder?

It deals with the chemical potential of a solvent in a binary ideal liquid.

Im guessing 70-80% of all availble jobs out there dont require anything higher then a 9th grade education.

While this might very well be true, it doesn't mean that those 70-80% of people are educated enough to discuss math on axiomatic or definitional level, much less do it correctly or have the necessary knowledge to even evaluate the validity of a mathematical argument.

And i can be very convincing to people over 40 if you catch my drift

And being convincing, and being correct in something you have only basic education in and don't use on a daily basis, are two entirely different things.

So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that you have no basis to discuss the matter of zero being a number or not.

"In mathematics, 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."

o3o zero wasnt a number. They had to change the rules to make it one.
There by, im not wrong. it techinically isnt a number, because the definition hasnt changed, the rule has.
So if you belive everything the goverment says ((lawlawlawl)) then yes, its a number.

 

[Coldie]

"In mathematics, 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."

o3o zero wasnt a number. They had to change the rules to make it one.
There by, im not wrong. it techinically isnt a number, because the definition hasnt changed, the rule has.
So if you belive everything the goverment says ((lawlawlawl)) then yes, its a number.

I would laugh, but I've exceeded my "incoming stupid" quota for the day. Pancakes have more consistency then you.

And once again - definitions are base for the rules, same as for everything else.

 

[Zacharine]

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!?!?

Six years, roughly.

Though I did have to solve this:

yesterday. Took me roughly 40 minutes.

which one would you say is harder?

It deals with the chemical potential of a solvent in a binary ideal liquid.

Im guessing 70-80% of all availble jobs out there dont require anything higher then a 9th grade education.

While this might very well be true, it doesn't mean that those 70-80% of people are educated enough to discuss math on axiomatic or definitional level, much less do it correctly or have the necessary knowledge to even evaluate the validity of a mathematical argument.

And i can be very convincing to people over 40 if you catch my drift

And being convincing, and being correct in something you have only basic education in and don't use on a daily basis, are two entirely different things.

So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that you have no basis to discuss the matter of zero being a number or not.

"In mathematics, 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."

o3o zero wasnt a number. They had to change the rules to make it one.

On that basis 1/2 wasn't a number (rational numbers), -1 wasn't a number (negative numbers), Pi wasn't a number (irrational numbers) and 1+2i wasn't a number.

So they had to 'change the rules' in order to arrive at modern algebra.

Defeating your own argument, as you consider Pi a 'true' number.

Well,

a) hurray for progress.
b) what are you smoking?

There by, im not wrong. it techinically isnt a number, because the definition hasnt changed, the rule has.

In mathematics, rules ARE definitions, and definitions ARE rules - read a bit about axioms and what it entails.

So if you belive everything the goverment says ((lawlawlawl)) then yes, its a number.

What does a government, or any and all governments, have to do with any of this - axioms and logical postulates from those?

Red Herring noted.

You really are grasping at straws. Why cannot you simply admit that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you made your original argument on basis of flawed and lacking knowledge? You've already admitted that you have no educational background to understand even your own argument, nor our counterarguments, and that you do not need even basic mathematics (advanced algebra, integral calculus or basic set theory) in your job.

 

[Metal Brother]

Zero is a number, just as 873,847,142,457,235 is a number. Just because you don't happen to have 873,847,142,457,235 apples in your room, it doesn't mean that 873,847,142,457,235 isn't a number, does it?

Time to take some math classes, my friend.

 

[Bodyless]

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!?!?

Six years, roughly.

Though I did have to solve this:

yesterday. Took me roughly 40 minutes.

which one would you say is harder?

It deals with the chemical potential of a solvent in a binary ideal liquid.

Im guessing 70-80% of all availble jobs out there dont require anything higher then a 9th grade education.

While this might very well be true, it doesn't mean that those 70-80% of people are educated enough to discuss math on axiomatic or definitional level, much less do it correctly or have the necessary knowledge to even evaluate the validity of a mathematical argument.

And i can be very convincing to people over 40 if you catch my drift

And being convincing, and being correct in something you have only basic education in and don't use on a daily basis, are two entirely different things.

So yes, thank you for agreeing with me that you have no basis to discuss the matter of zero being a number or not.

"In mathematics, 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."

o3o zero wasnt a number. They had to change the rules to make it one.
There by, im not wrong. it techinically isnt a number, because the definition hasnt changed, the rule has.
So if you belive everything the goverment says ((lawlawlawl)) then yes, its a number.

The definitions ARE the rules. and lol what is this about some goverment? do you think they use different mathematics in russia?
Anyway, if you argue that negativ integers are numbers, then i have to tell you that they needed the zero to be invented.

 

[Blanko2]

jesus flippin christ it hasnt been that long since i posted.
koruiichi, i will accept anything you say about numbers once you start behaving like a human being.
and typing sensibly and spell-checking and NOT USING XD EVERY SENTENCE.
0 degrees celcius water freezes. it is a thing. its right there.
0 as a vector means no movement.
this is SILLY.

 

[kouriichi]

No, the rules are different the the dfinition.

jesus flippin christ it hasnt been that long since i posted.
koruiichi, i will accept anything you say about numbers once you start behaving like a human being.
and typing sensibly and spell-checking and NOT USING XD EVERY SENTENCE.
0 degrees celcius water freezes. it is a thing. its right there.
0 as a vector means no movement.
this is SILLY.

i already settled this with someone else
i have 2 people agreeing with me and a 3rd half agreeing.
0 isnt a number, its a place holder. and place holders arnt numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
it even says in the definition of 0, it even says "As a number, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems".
its not a number, its a place holder, 2 other people agree 100%.
The goverment even had to change the rule so 0 is a number.
"In mathematics, 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."

in other words, the definition of Number was changed, not 0, so im not wrong.