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

[Coldie]

Your right, the value and digit are different.

what was the value of 0 again? Nil right?

There are 3 terms at work here now:
1. The oh so very placeholdery and boring digit.
A. The number zero, as defined: Value A where A + x = x and A * x = A is true for any value of x; + countless other definitions in other theories;
*. Value of said number zero, which is 0 in elementary arithmetics and may be different in other conditions.

Hey, even 7 can be a zero. For instance, 7 [sub]mod 7[/sub] is equivalent to zero. Math is like magic, you make the rules that define reality.

 

[kouriichi]

Your right, the value and digit are different.

what was the value of 0 again? Nil right?

There are 3 terms at work here now:
1. The oh so very placeholdery and boring digit.
A. The number zero, as defined: Value A where A + x = x and A * x = A is true for any value of x; + countless other definitions in other theories;
*. Value of said number zero, which is 0 in elementary arithmetics and may be different in other conditions.

Hey, even 7 can be a zero. For instance, 7 [sub]mod 7[/sub] is equivalent to zero. Math is like magic, you make the rules that define reality.

So 0 is 7?
Meaning that 0 isnt a number,
but its there for 7 to take its place?

 

[kouriichi]

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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

 

[Hosker]

Yes, it is a number.

 

[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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

 

[Hawgh]

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?

nil is just another word for nothing or the value of zero. It is less clearly defined than zero.

Whatever argument you're trying to make is blurred by your inability to express yourself clearly. It doesn't help that you continue to ignore the arguments against your position, either.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but since you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?
Please keep your answer to 10 words.

 

[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?

nil is just another word for nothing or the value of zero. It is less clearly defined than zero.

Whatever argument you're trying to make is blurred by your inability to express yourself clearly. It doesn't help that you continue to ignore the arguments against your position, either.

yes, it does.
Now answer me this. What i the definition of "nothing"?
Please, keep your answer to a short sweet 10 words.

 

[Coldie]

So 0 is 7?
Meaning that 0 isnt a number,
but its there for 7 to take its place?

Don't go there. Linear algebra is way out of your league and it was just a sample of a zero that is not quite same as the mundane "no apples in my hand" zero. 7 and 0 have the same amount of numberness.

Zero is a number, apple is a fruit, Hooloovoo is a hyperintelligent shade of blue, cow goes moo, giraffes have 7 vertebrae in the neck, just like others.

Any other questions?

 

[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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but insce you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?

Zero, at least according to Consice Oxford English Dictionary.

What has this got to do with zero being a number or not?

 

[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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but since you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?
Please keep your answer to 10 words.

Also, false Dicthotomy - the question cannot be answered with just Yes or No.

 

[kouriichi]

So 0 is 7?
Meaning that 0 isnt a number,
but its there for 7 to take its place?

Don't go there. Linear algebra is way out of your league and it was just a sample of a zero that are not quite equal to the mundane "no apples in my hand" zero. 7 and 0 have the same amount of numberness.

Zero is a number, apple is a fruit, Hooloovoo is a hyperintelligent shade of blue, cow goes moo, giraffes have 7 vertebrae in the neck, just like others.

Any other questions?

Yes, what makes you qualifyed to say im not allowed to go to linear algebra?
What makes you qualifyed to say, im less intelligent then you?

:0 Hmmmmm? Answer 10-20 words please.

 

[Coldie]

Yes, what makes you qualifyed to say im not allowed to go to linear algebra?
What makes you qualifyed to say, im less intelligent then you?

:0 Hmmmmm? Answer 10-20 words please.

You've never finished High School. That's a big prerequisite for university.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but since you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?
Please keep your answer to 10 words.

Also, false Dicthotomy - the question cannot be answered with just Yes or No.

yes it can
You can answer almost all question. You can say yes to the question, "is the value of Pi nil".
You wouldent be wrong. So answer it truthfully please.
Yes or no.

 

[Blunderman]

Simply put, the question you're asking is redundant since you've already gone ahead to explain that, by definition, the answer is no. The problem with this is that both definitions (yours and the common parlance one) are equally valid. Choosing between the two is a matter of usage and not correctness.

The graphical representation '0' of the word 'zero' is a number. This is because its usage isn't restricted to the concept of 'zero', and while performing mathematical calculations a lone '0' (as in nothing) isn't written out (commonly, but there are exceptions).

The problem with understanding your question lies in how we've structured our numerical representation of mathematical values. A '0' on its own means nothing. A '0' together with other numbers (130, -1.03. 390 000) etc functions as a part of a whole. A grossly simplified analogy of this would be the word "Hi". The letter 'I' is a word in itself, but the letter 'H' isn't. Here, the word "Hi" is similar to the numerical value "70" (X multiplied by 10).

A '0' can mean many things, such as the location in an XY plane.

The concept of 'zero' (nothing) itself is obviously not a number, since that would arguably be the same as claiming that vacuum is a number.

 

[kouriichi]

Yes, what makes you qualifyed to say im not allowed to go to linear algebra?
What makes you qualifyed to say, im less intelligent then you?

:0 Hmmmmm? Answer 10-20 words please.

You've never finished High School. That's a big prerequisite for university.

i got 3/4ths of the way through 12th.
Roughly 3 months, before finals.
But that doesnt give you a right to judge if im more intelligent then you.

Correct me if im wrong, but didnt Albert Einstein drop out of school? Im sure hes waaaay smarter then you will ever be

 

[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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but since you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?
Please keep your answer to 10 words.

Also, false Dicthotomy - the question cannot be answered with just Yes or No.

yes it can
You can answer almost all question. You can say yes to the question, "is the value of Pi nil".
You wouldent be wrong. So answer it truthfully please.
Yes or no.

No it cannot, because it depends on the branch of mathematics we are talking about.

The value of number 0 in logic is "false".

This is a valid answer that defies your yes/no dichotomy - making it False Dichotomy

Please try again.

 

[kouriichi]

Simply put, the question you're asking is redundant since you've already gone ahead to explain that, by definition, the answer is no. The problem with this is that both definitions (yours and the common parlance one) are equally valid. Choosing between the two is a matter of usage and not correctness.

The graphical representation '0' of the word 'zero' is a number. This is because its usage isn't restricted to the concept of 'zero', and while performing mathematical calculations '0' isn't written out (commonly, but there are exceptions).

The problem with understanding your question lies in how we've structured our numerical representation of mathematical values. A '0' on its own means nothing. A '0' together with other numbers (130, -1.03. 390 000) etc functions as a part of a whole. A grossly simplified analogy of this would be the word "Hi". The letter 'I' is a word in itself, but the letter 'H' isn't. Here, the word "Hi" is similar to the numerical value "70" (X multiplied by 10).

A '0' can mean many things, such as the location in an XY plane.

The concept of 'zero' (nothing) itself is obviously not a number, since that would arguably be the same as claiming that vacuum is a number.

Thank you for the support XD

 

[kouriichi]

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.

Did you, or did you not say, "Nil" was the value of 0?
yes or no answers please

Among others, yes - the value of zero can also be "false", {}, z(x) = 0 under (f + g)(x) = f(x) + g(x), or

Now how does any of that make 0 NOT a number?

Wait wait wait~
That wasnt in the form of a yes or no.
but since you included "Yes", i'll talk it as a plain "Yes".

Now what is the definition of nil?
Please keep your answer to 10 words.

Also, false Dicthotomy - the question cannot be answered with just Yes or No.

yes it can
You can answer almost all question. You can say yes to the question, "is the value of Pi nil".
You wouldent be wrong. So answer it truthfully please.
Yes or no.

No it cannot, because it depends on the branch of mathematics we are talking about.

The value of number 0 in logic is "false".

This is a valid answer that defies your yes/no dichotomy - making it False Dichotomy

Please try again.

so your saying this? you cannot answer because 0 has so many forms, you would be wrong to answer?

So then one of its forms IS a place holder?

 

[LeZhizzle]

Everything that Skoosh said

Zero is a number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zero
You'll notice zero was one of the first things added to the list of numbers (after obvious positive whole numbers).

You seem to think that "1" or "42" aren't concepts, but for some reason zero is. It's unique from other numbers because it is neither positive nor negative, but it still represents the idea of a particular value. As for "no" not being a number, look at "many." Just because you can use a word that isn't a number to describe something doesn't mean it's not a number.

Zero is used all over math and science, holding and representing a very specific value. The absence of something is still a value, just like owing something is still a value (0 and negative, respectively). If that same person that traveled backward 1 mile had a friend next to him that didn't move, how many miles did he go? Zero!

Websters defines a number as "a unit belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to specified laws of succession, addition, and multiplication" so it seems "0" fits that definition. Now stop being an idiot.