Poll: Is zero a number? (Read before voting)
- Thread starter crystalsnow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm willing to bet after 20 pages of this, someone has brought up the point I'm about to make, but I'm going to make it anyway.
First, I would like to reiterate the point that has already been made that saying 'no' does not imply zero can be expanded to saying 'a' does not imply one. It's ridiculous semantics and a completely invalid argument.
Moreover, I would like to talk about the idea that, to pick one of the offered examples, if you take the concept of 'This box has 1 cat in it' and remove the cat, that you have 'This box' rather than 'This box has zero cats in it'
English is a cheat language, perhaps more than any other, but I'm pretty sure this one is universal. Humans are lazy; we don't use twelve words when two will do (at least not most of the time). As a rather coarse example, when I was younger I would often say, as a statement of incredulity:
"What the hell was that?"
Fast forward a few months and it became simply
"What the hell?"
Today, I don't even bother with the first word and simply use intonation to make this a question
"The hell?"
You see? The original exclamation was five words, the shortened one is two, and they mean EXACTLY the same thing (with respect to how I use them).
Similarly, saying 'This is a box' and 'This is a box with zero cats in it' mean the same thing, but no one would say the second one because it's A) too long and B) redundant.
Also, we may not be able to observe zero somethings, but we can certainly observe the absence of something.
Consider black as a colour. It's common consensus (though I don't like it) that black is not an actual colour, but rather the absence thereof. Still, it would be foolish to say black doesn't exist. I'm wearing a black shirt. I can see the shirt. I can observe that it's black.
Likewise, I can look in a box and observe that there are zero cats.
Zero is the base counting number. I don't start with one something, I start with zero somethings and add one to it (sometimes repeatedly), which brings me to my last point.
Which of the following would you say to a box containing two cats:
"This box has two cats in it"
OR
"This box has one cat in it and another cat in it"
The first one, right? Because it's quicker, and we have devised 'two' as a faster way of saying 'one plus one'. You would certainly agree that two is a number, yes? So why should one plus one be a number and not one minus one?
For those of you that consider this too long to read, let me summarize in a sentence or two. Zero implies the nonexistence of something, and is omitted because it's faster that way and makes more linguistic sense. Further, you COULD express every number (represented as X) as X+0 but you don't because that's just X and again, no reason to write that which is redundant.
I feel I may have been a little redundant myself here, but I think it was worth it.
First, I would like to reiterate the point that has already been made that saying 'no' does not imply zero can be expanded to saying 'a' does not imply one. It's ridiculous semantics and a completely invalid argument.
Moreover, I would like to talk about the idea that, to pick one of the offered examples, if you take the concept of 'This box has 1 cat in it' and remove the cat, that you have 'This box' rather than 'This box has zero cats in it'
English is a cheat language, perhaps more than any other, but I'm pretty sure this one is universal. Humans are lazy; we don't use twelve words when two will do (at least not most of the time). As a rather coarse example, when I was younger I would often say, as a statement of incredulity:
"What the hell was that?"
Fast forward a few months and it became simply
"What the hell?"
Today, I don't even bother with the first word and simply use intonation to make this a question
"The hell?"
You see? The original exclamation was five words, the shortened one is two, and they mean EXACTLY the same thing (with respect to how I use them).
Similarly, saying 'This is a box' and 'This is a box with zero cats in it' mean the same thing, but no one would say the second one because it's A) too long and B) redundant.
Also, we may not be able to observe zero somethings, but we can certainly observe the absence of something.
Consider black as a colour. It's common consensus (though I don't like it) that black is not an actual colour, but rather the absence thereof. Still, it would be foolish to say black doesn't exist. I'm wearing a black shirt. I can see the shirt. I can observe that it's black.
Likewise, I can look in a box and observe that there are zero cats.
Zero is the base counting number. I don't start with one something, I start with zero somethings and add one to it (sometimes repeatedly), which brings me to my last point.
Which of the following would you say to a box containing two cats:
"This box has two cats in it"
OR
"This box has one cat in it and another cat in it"
The first one, right? Because it's quicker, and we have devised 'two' as a faster way of saying 'one plus one'. You would certainly agree that two is a number, yes? So why should one plus one be a number and not one minus one?
For those of you that consider this too long to read, let me summarize in a sentence or two. Zero implies the nonexistence of something, and is omitted because it's faster that way and makes more linguistic sense. Further, you COULD express every number (represented as X) as X+0 but you don't because that's just X and again, no reason to write that which is redundant.
I feel I may have been a little redundant myself here, but I think it was worth it.
Wow... it's rare you see somebody go into so much detail based on a premise that is so completely wrong. What the hell is your definition of "number"?
EVERY number is a concept. If you're going to argue that 0 isn't a number because it "doesn't exist" or such nonsense, then no numbers exist. Either 0 and 1 are both numbers or neither are.
EVERY number is a concept. If you're going to argue that 0 isn't a number because it "doesn't exist" or such nonsense, then no numbers exist. Either 0 and 1 are both numbers or neither are.
But it was never much use for anything other than counting things.Senaro said:
The Babylonians invented zero around the 7th century BC. China and India had zero in the 4th century BC. Symbols representing zero were in use in ancient Greece and later the Roman empire, recorded in AD 130 and AD 525 respectively. The Arabic numerals were invented around the same time, including their own symbol for zero, the one we still use today. This was only introduced to Europe seven centuries later, so it is often stated incorrectly that Europeans had no symbol for zero before then.
The Mayans and Olmecs invented zero in the 1st century BC, but their mathematics obviously developed independently of Eurasian systems.
The ancient Greek philosopher-mathematicians argued about this very same topic ("how can nothing be something?"). Interestingly, they also argued about whether 1 was really a number, or just the unit of numbers.
you're thinking like an ancient roman, rather then a modern human.kouriichi said:
Of course we can show 0 as a physical representation. We just need to put a label on what we're showing, and it can be ANY label.
I can show you 0 pictures of cats:
You can't say I'm wrong. There are 0 pictures of cats there.
0=nothing. 0 is a symbol for nothing, just as 1 is a symbol for a single object. It's a number. The last part you're just talking about displacement.
Tst tsk, you forgot to comment, and surely you know hard coding is a bad practice. I fixed it for yaoktalist said:PxDn Ninja said:Interesting theory, but as a software engineer I have to both disagree, and provide counterpoints
Output:Code:// End thread if the value of fZero is a number float fZero = 0.0f; if (! isnan(fZero)) { printf("/thread"); }
/thread
We actually call that displacement, and it's a totally different concept than distance. It comes to play a lot in physics once you get into vectors of forces and velocities.nuba km said:
You can move three miles east, then three miles west. The distance you've travelled is 6 miles, but your displacement from your point of origin is 0 miles.
You're saying 0 doesn't exist, and yet here you have an example of where it can exist. If you have a perfect vacuum, then you have 0 particles of matter in that space. Zero is a number, it defines the value of having nothing.crystalsnow said:
Actually, if you were to get into it this way I might say that 1 mile backwards doesn't equal -1. It actually equals +1, but in a negative direction. Keep that in mind for my next point.crystalsnow said:
If I were to be facing forward and not moving, I could say that I've traveled 0 miles forward. I could also say that I'm traveling 0 miles per hour, relative to the ground. In physics, it's actually very common to give an object at rest a velocity of 0 m/s and a displacement of 0 m. Another way of thinking of that is that an object at a constant velocity of say, 10 m/s has no measurable acceleration. As long as it's moving at a constant rate of speed, it's acceleration equals 0.
0 equals a starting point. Without zero, "x + 3 = 3" would have no answer. You say zero has no value, and yet here "x = 0". The value of x is 0.
Zero doesn't have a value. It's a theoretical placeholder in the same vein as "i". Is "i" a number? No.
All numbers are concepts. I am A person. I am not ONE person unless considered in relation to other numbers of people, numbers that are only present in their absence. I am ONE from the group, not when the group is over there, but when the group is absent from the sentence, the thought, entirely. But this A isn't specific to me either. A is rather a generalized sum of traits, actively erasing all that is specific to each person. This erasure by generalization does away with the reality of each A, forming the concept, which human minds feel at ease with. Minds can manipulate concepts, not reality, the individual.
Numbers, like words, have their own parasitic relationship with the real, being.
Imagine an apple. You think of the appleness of an apple, its properties. The word apple is a generalized sum of the various things called apple. ONE apple is now the concept of appleness coupled with the concept of singularity. But singularity is not the individual, the specific and unique. ONE is not THIS. One is only possible by imagining a lack of two or three that was not previously there-that is, that is not real, but concept.
Zero is no different. Imagine zero apples. You take the quiddity of an apple and from this anchor, make a lack which has no reality or being of its own. You do not consider zero as empty space, but the apple as absent. So too is there no 2.5 in the world. Only 2.5 insofar as it is not 2.4 or 2.6. This is different than an apple which is not an apple because it is not an orange. A word, like apple, takes real individual apples and blurs them into a mushy image for thought's consumption. But every number can only stand on the void that it makes of all the numbers that it is not.
Zero, then, in this sense, is the ultimate number, what all numbers are, underneath.
Numbers, like words, have their own parasitic relationship with the real, being.
Imagine an apple. You think of the appleness of an apple, its properties. The word apple is a generalized sum of the various things called apple. ONE apple is now the concept of appleness coupled with the concept of singularity. But singularity is not the individual, the specific and unique. ONE is not THIS. One is only possible by imagining a lack of two or three that was not previously there-that is, that is not real, but concept.
Zero is no different. Imagine zero apples. You take the quiddity of an apple and from this anchor, make a lack which has no reality or being of its own. You do not consider zero as empty space, but the apple as absent. So too is there no 2.5 in the world. Only 2.5 insofar as it is not 2.4 or 2.6. This is different than an apple which is not an apple because it is not an orange. A word, like apple, takes real individual apples and blurs them into a mushy image for thought's consumption. But every number can only stand on the void that it makes of all the numbers that it is not.
Zero, then, in this sense, is the ultimate number, what all numbers are, underneath.
Har har. Is that enough comments for you? Also: Hungarian notation, NOOOOO!PxDn Ninja said:Tst tsk, you forgot to comment, and surely you know hard coding is a bad practice. I fixed it for yaoktalist said:PxDn Ninja said:Interesting theory, but as a software engineer I have to both disagree, and provide counterpointsOutput:Code:#include <math.h> // for isnan #include <stdio.h> // for puts int main(int, char**) { // End thread if the value of fZero is a number float const fZero = 0.0f; // declare fZero as a const float and initialise it to zero if (! isnan(fZero)) // if fZero is not NaN... { // declare sEndThread as a ptr to const char and initialize it to string literal char const* sEndThread = "/thread"; puts(sEndThread); // write "/thread\n" to stdout } return 0; // return from function, terminating program with exit status 0 }
/thread
[small]I'm such a nerd...[/small]
