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

[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.

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?

Define 'placeholder'.

and it has multiple answers, depending on the context.

 

[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.

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

As can be clearly inferred from the word: "nothing = No thing, no things, absence of things".
What does that have to do with the fact that zero is a number?

 

[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?

Define 'placeholder'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
I wont, but wiki will.

 

[thingymuwatsit]

I was never taught that 0 was a number: it has always been like a placeholder (a decimal point) to me. That is just what I have learnt.

 

[kouriichi]

I was never taught that 0 was a number: it has always been like a placeholder (a decimal point) to me. That is just what I have learnt.

Because really, for any use other then something similar to Theory, it is.

 

[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.

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?

Define 'placeholder'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
I wont, but wiki will.

I will read that as "a symbol that will later be replaced by some literal string"

Yes, zero can be a placeholder.

now, what of it?

 

[Blunderman]

Thank you for the support XD

I think you misinterpreted my post (in case you think I was advocating the position you hold).

My point is simply that '0' represents not just one entity, but several, and depending on which you're referring to, it either is or isn't a numerical value.

 

[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?

Define 'placeholder'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
I wont, but wiki will.

I will read that as "a symbol that will later be replaced by some literal string"

Yes, zero can be a placeholder.

now, what of it?

So im not wrong that 0 isnt a number?
im right that its a place holder.
or are you going to plead the fifth and hide behind false Dicthotomy again?

 

[kouriichi]

Thank you for the support XD

I think you misinterpreted my post (in case you think I was advocating the position you hold).

My point is simply that '0' represents not just one entity, but several, and depending on which you're referring to, it either is or isn't a numerical value.

Thats one of the points im trying to get across. its value is oftin that of nothing, meaning it has no numerical value.

 

[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.

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?

Define 'placeholder'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
I wont, but wiki will.

I will read that as "a symbol that will later be replaced by some literal string"

Yes, zero can be a placeholder.

now, what of it?

So im not wrong that 0 isnt a number?
im right that its a place holder.
or are you going to plead the fifth and hide behind false Dicthotomy again?

You've shown no reason why a number cannot be a placeholder.

You're missing that logical step.

 

[Blunderman]

Thank you for the support XD

I think you misinterpreted my post (in case you think I was advocating the position you hold).

My point is simply that '0' represents not just one entity, but several, and depending on which you're referring to, it either is or isn't a numerical value.

Thats one of the points im trying to get across. its value is oftin that of nothing, meaning it has no numerical value.

Then if you acknowledge that the answer is both yes and no then what're you trying to argue here?

 

[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?

Define 'placeholder'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeholder
I wont, but wiki will.

I will read that as "a symbol that will later be replaced by some literal string"

Yes, zero can be a placeholder.

now, what of it?

So im not wrong that 0 isnt a number?
im right that its a place holder.
or are you going to plead the fifth and hide behind false Dicthotomy again?

You've shown no reason why a number cannot be a placeholder.

You're missing that logical step.

You cant replace 1 with 2 and still have 1
1 isnt a placeholder.
As defined "1 (one) is a number, numeral, and the name of the glyph representing that number. It represents a single entity, the unit of counting or measurement."
And no where does the page even use "placeholder" unlike our friendly placeholder 0 xD

 

[kouriichi]

Thank you for the support XD

I think you misinterpreted my post (in case you think I was advocating the position you hold).

My point is simply that '0' represents not just one entity, but several, and depending on which you're referring to, it either is or isn't a numerical value.

Thats one of the points im trying to get across. its value is oftin that of nothing, meaning it has no numerical value.

Then if you acknowledge that the answer is both yes and no then what're you trying to argue here?

i acknoladge both sides.
Yes it can be a number.
But no, for normal use it isnt.
Theres a differance between its use in advanced mathematics,
and that of regular.

Even as Sak Sak said, the rules for it change

 

[Zacharine]

You cant replace 1 with 2 and still have 1

No, but you can replace 1 with 1/1, or 3/3, or possibly {1} or even

That is what the = sign means; the strings of symbols on boths sides are interchangeable

A symbol (1) replaced with a string (any of the above)

Therefore, 1 can be a placeholder, while simultaneously being a number.

Please try again.

 

[Blunderman]

Thank you for the support XD

I think you misinterpreted my post (in case you think I was advocating the position you hold).

My point is simply that '0' represents not just one entity, but several, and depending on which you're referring to, it either is or isn't a numerical value.

Thats one of the points im trying to get across. its value is oftin that of nothing, meaning it has no numerical value.

Then if you acknowledge that the answer is both yes and no then what're you trying to argue here?

i acknoladge both sides.
Yes it can be a number.
But no, for normal use it isnt.
Theres a differance between its use in advanced mathematics,
and that of regular.

Even as Sak Sak said, the rules for it change

"Normal use"? Now you're just trolling. Either that, or you're remarkably lacking in understanding of what you're trying to discuss.

/leaves thread

 

[thingymuwatsit]

I was never taught that 0 was a number: it has always been like a placeholder (a decimal point) to me. That is just what I have learnt.

Because really, for any use other then something similar to Theory, it is.

exactly, all numbers must be factors another numbers divisible by at least one other number, instantly ruling out zero.

 

[kouriichi]

You cant replace 1 with 2 and still have 1

No, but you can replace 1 with 1/1, or 3/3, or possibly {1} or even

That is what the = sign means; the strings of symbols on boths sides are interchangeable

A symbol (1) replaced with a string (any of the above)

Therefore, 1 can be a placeholder, while simultaneously being a number.

Please try again.

But that means im not wrong. No need to try again.
2 reasons. 1/1, and 3/3 are the same as 1. Soooo~ im not wrong there.
and the second reason is that as you said, its simultaneously a number, meaning im not wrong in that respect eather.

You "Please try again".

 

[drdamo]

Nothing = That which is of no consequence, significance, or interest.

By that logic, 0 would be useless and therefore not a number.
However 0 has consequences, significance or interest in many situations.
So 0 can´t be nothing.
Yet 0 isn´t something either, nor is 0 the lack of something.
It is the absence of a lack of, nothing & something in one, a paradox.
So is a paradox countable?
A countable paradox is a paradox itself, so that can´t be the answer either.

My conclusion is that 0 is not a number in some cases and it is one in an equal ammount of other cases.

The rules regarding the use of 0 are there for a reason, to avoid people like us making a mess of it and wasting an insane ammount of time contemplating the historical use, current use and future use.
We are trying to invent the wheel anew, because we can, not because we should.
Does it matter if some call it a number and some don´t? I think not, providing they use the socially accepted rules as overall law and implement the same ways of calculus alike.

So should we keep this fire burning and keep hiding our potential trolling with our "logic"?
Thats up to everyone, but I myself am done with this.
I know my math and I implement it quite well and despite my personal opinion of not thinking 0 is an actual number, people still think my work is top notch.

 

[kouriichi]

I was never taught that 0 was a number: it has always been like a placeholder (a decimal point) to me. That is just what I have learnt.

Because really, for any use other then something similar to Theory, it is.

exactly, all numbers must be factors another numbers divisible by at least one other number, instantly ruling out zero.

Exactly XD 0 eather as a digit or number doesnt work.

 

[kouriichi]

Nothing = That which is of no consequence, significance, or interest.

By that logic, 0 would be useless and therefore not a number.
However 0 has consequences, significance or interest in many situations.
So 0 can´t be nothing.
Yet 0 isn´t something either, nor is 0 the lack of something.
It is the absence of a lack of, nothing & something in one, a paradox.
So is a paradox countable?
A countable paradox is a paradox itself, so that can´t be the answer either.

My conclusion is that 0 is not a number in some cases and it is one in an equal ammount of other cases.

The rules regarding the use of 0 are there for a reason, to avoid people like us making a mess of it and wasting an insane ammount of time contemplating the historical use, current use and future use.
We are trying to invent the wheel anew, because we can, not because we should.
Does it matter if some call it a number and some don´t? I think not, providing they use the socially accepted rules as overall law and implement the same ways of calculus alike.

So should we keep this fire burning and keep hiding our potential trolling with our "logic"?
Thats up to everyone, but I myself am done with this.
I know my math and I implement it quite well and despite my personal opinion of not thinking 0 is an actual number, people still think my work is top notch.

xD
They had to make rules for 0 to be used right.
Thats saying something.

Oh well, depending on where you live, have a nice day or night man.