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

[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.

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.

The definition of number was changed, not 0.
So im not wrong
Im not right eather.
While you were gone me and another settled this,
made up our differances, and even became what i would loosely call aquintinces.
Right now, its 3 and 1/2 against you and this noobie who just jumped in.

 

[Metal Brother]

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.

SakSak wins.

/thread

 

[kouriichi]

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.

SakSak wins.

/thread

So he wins against me and 3 others?
:/

I have an education background. My arguments are agreed upon by people who see things in the same light at me, and even 1 person who was on his side.

yes, i lose because hes the only original holdout.

 

[Blanko2]

The goverment even had to change the rule so 0 is a number.

which government would this be?
of the country of mathistan?
cuz that's not actually a place, you know.

and i may be a "noobie who just jumped in" but at least i know how to write properly, bub.
*shrug* whatever.

 

[Metal Brother]

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.

SakSak wins.

/thread

So he wins against me and 3 others?
:/

I have an education background. My arguments are agreed upon by people who see things in the same light at me, and even 1 person who was on his side.

yes, i lose because hes the only original holdout.

No, you lose because you're wrong and he's right. The nice thing about math is that it allows for proofs and absolute truths. If being right means convincing people that you're right then I guess that means that Hitler was right, right? He sure convinced a lot of people about those Jews, didn't he?

Yeah, I know, I brought Hitler into an argument on the internet. I'm THAT GUY today. ;-)

But even by your own criteria, you still lose. Look at the poll results. Most users just can't be bothered jumping in to such an obvious waste of time.

 

[kouriichi]

The goverment even had to change the rule so 0 is a number.

which government would this be?
of the country of mathistan?
cuz that's not actually a place, you know.

and i may be a "noobie who just jumped in" but at least i know how to write properly, bub.
*shrug* whatever.

I mean goverment in general.
"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."
Theres the proof i need.

:/ and stop ragging on my typing. its the internet. My lingo dont gotta be perfict "bub".

The rules have been changed in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
They can be changed again in the future. Stop aruging pointless things that we have gotten past.

if you want to talk if 0 is a number or not, fine, but if not, your not worth my time.
Ive argued for 16 pages and swayed 2 people, ((one who decided not to agree with me, but not to go against me, and one who half agrees with me.)) so id say my facts are pretty solid.

 

[Coldie]

No, the rules are different the the dfinition.
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.

I find your lack of math disturbing.

Also lacking: common sense, education, spell checker, any sort of debating skill. "Hedgehogs have four legs, therefore I'm right" is not a valid argument. Fortunately, this thread is immensely entertaining, as something of a mathematical schadenfreude.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

SakSak wins.

/thread

So he wins against me and 3 others?
:/

I have an education background. My arguments are agreed upon by people who see things in the same light at me, and even 1 person who was on his side.

yes, i lose because hes the only original holdout.

No, you lose because you're wrong and he's right. The nice thing about math is that it allows for proofs and absolute truths. If being right means convincing people that you're right then I guess that means that Hitler was right, right? He sure convinced a lot of people about those Jews, didn't he?

Yeah, I know, I brought Hitler into an argument on the internet. I'm THAT GUY today. ;-)

But even by your own criteria, you still lose. Look at the poll results. Most users just can't be bothered jumping in to such an obvious waste of time.

So what? :/ the majority of people arnt right.
Thats something new.

People belive what theyer programmed to. The litteral definition of 0 even states its a place holder. The exact wording is, "As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems"

And place holders are not numbers. So 0 is not a number.

direct logic. i win.

 

[kouriichi]

No, the rules are different the the dfinition.
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.

I find your lack of math disturbing.

Also lacking: common sense, education, spell checker, any sort of debating skill. "Hedgehogs have four legs, therefore I'm right" is not a valid argument. Fortunately, this thread is immensely entertaining, as something of a mathematical schadenfreude.

i have plenty of common scense. "As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems" i win.

My education is not needed when i the entire internet is at my finger tips.

"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." straight fromt he definition of "Number".

Im not right, but im not wrong.

 

[Blanko2]

interesting, I'd like to see what facts these are because all I've seen (on this thread) prove the contrary.
but this thread is way too long, anyway.
and yeah, your lingo doesn't need to be "perfict" but arguing a point becomes easier when you try to follow some sort of grammatical ruling, rather than make it up as you go along.
professionalism is just so much more convincing, I've always thought.

 

[Hawgh]

Yes, yes it is. It is the first of the nonnegative numbers.

 

[Blanko2]

oh and i don't mean posting this over and over again:
"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."

because you believe that pi is a number and it is included in that quote there.

 

[Coldie]

So what? :/ the majority of people arnt right.
Thats something new.

People belive what theyer programmed to. The litteral definition of 0 even states its a place holder. The exact wording is, "As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems"

And place holders are not numbers. So 0 is not a number.

direct logic. i win.

The literal 0, as a digit, indeed is used as a placeholder.
The number 0, as a number, is a number. Zero not always represented as the digit 0, but it's always a number. Zero is your god.

The amount of cluefulness you display is a number, too. Hint: it's zero. Your troll ways can never win, mon.

 

[kouriichi]

oh and i don't mean posting this over and over again:
"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."

because you believe that pi is a number and it is included in that quote there.

But Pi is not 0 now is it?

Also "The value, or number, zero is not the same as the digit zero." Thereby, 0 doesnt equal 0.

As others have stated the value of 0 is nil correct?

 

[kouriichi]

So what? :/ the majority of people arnt right.
Thats something new.

People belive what theyer programmed to. The litteral definition of 0 even states its a place holder. The exact wording is, "As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems"

And place holders are not numbers. So 0 is not a number.

direct logic. i win.

The literal 0, as a digit, indeed is used as a placeholder.
The number 0, as a number, is a number. Zero not always represented as the digit 0, but it's always a number. Zero is your god.

The amount of cluefulness you display is a number, too. Hint: it's zero. Your troll ways can never win, mon.

Your right, the value and digit are different.

what was the value of 0 again? Nil right?

 

[Ken Sapp]

If a number can be described as 'A figure used to represent value', and zero has no value, then logically zero would not be a number.

An absence of value is still a value, therefore zero is a number.

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 argument has a flaw. "How far away did you travel?" should be 3 miles.

 

[Blanko2]

pi still needed changes to be included in the definition of number.

 

[kouriichi]

pi still needed changes to be included in the definition of number.

but this subject isnt about Pi now is it?
No no no, this is about 0!!
Try to stay on topic!!
isnt the value of 0 nil?

 

[Zacharine]

if you want to talk if 0 is a number or not, fine, but if not, your not worth my time.
Ive argued for 16 pages and swayed 2 people, ((one who decided not to agree with me, but not to go against me, and one who half agrees with me.)) so id say my facts are pretty solid.

Argumentum Ad Populum - dimissed and ignored.

The rules have been changed in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
They can be changed again in the future.

So you are arguing that 0 is not a number, because the current definition of a number MIGHT change in the future?

Argumentum Ad Postermo - dimissed and ignored.

Yeah, right, tell me how that goes, when you take a million dollar mortage on basis that your salary MIGHT increase in the future.

So far your argumentational fallacies include the No True Scotsman, Red Herrings, Argumentum Ad Populum, Argumentum Ad Postermo and a list of mathematical misunderstandings and factual flaws.

You have also not responded to several arguments you've been countered with - I have thus no other option but to consider you unable to do so.

Your attempts at redefining 'number' lead to the definition being archaic and functionally useless even within mathematics. When questioned upon your background knowledge and education in mathematics, you admit to having none beyond high-school and not using math in a major way in your daily life.

From now on, I will ignore any and all fallacious arguments from you.

If you have any actual logically sound argument why in the current system 0 is not a number, that has not already been refuted, I will listen to it.

But you'll have to do a lot better than you've done so far.

You might wish to begin by formally defining 'number', and 'value' and why those definitions are mathematically correct AND contain equal or more utility than current definitions.

AFter all, I might myself create a mathematical system with axioms like "a=b, for all numbers a and b", but that axiom would apply only in that system, and is quickly proven to be of no utility. Such flawed axioms will get you nowhere.

So, if you honestly wish to discuss a supposed failing of current axiomatic system in regards to zero as a number, I will be glad to do so. But be prepared to defend your argument with far more substance than you've shown so far - logical fallacies will get your argument dismissed.

 

[Queen Michael]

Interesting reasoning; you make a good point.