Poll: Is zero a number? (Read before voting)
- Thread starter crystalsnow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Zero is a number, it's also a good stand in for the concept of nothing but the two are not synonymous. Zero is a numeric abstraction useful for a lot of mathematical formulas (like negative numbers) now if you have 0 cookies you have nothing but that doesn't always follow. You can't take 2 away from nothing and have a rational result. That's why we need the abstraction that numbers like 0 provide.
I've known plenty of times like that; stress-induced insomnia mostly. It's easy enough to get carried away or misinterpret things over the internet, particularly seeing how much of human communication is based in vocal tones and body language, none of which are regularly available over the internet.oktalist said:
Probably doesn't help much that a sarcastic statement amongst rational statements (regardless of correctness) does little to help in making a point, which looking back, I'm certain I've done a number of times. And sure, I'm definitely a bit angry, largely at being mistaught concepts by people I trusted only to have to be corrected and relearn things in public discussion rather than a classroom or textbook.
Besides, it's good to hear circumstances and perceptions in cases like this. Excuse or not, it's a contributing factor to understanding someone else's point of view. If the worst thing I'm called in the space of a day is troll or child, I'd call it a good day but public treatment for me's largely been worse than online, something I hope very few would ever have to experience.
Ok, you, yes you, pay attention here. I am going to explain something very carefully to you. I made a post a while back, about something, I forget what, and I noticed your posts. And your inability to realize a certain fact, that is sort of simple but sort of isn't is kinda annoying me.kouriichi said:
To you, your argument for zero not being a number is this:
0 = nothing
That is not true.
{} = nothing
{} is a little thing called the empty set. The empty set is by far, the only way to represent absolute nothingness in mathematics. It is something which has no value. It's cardinality (the number of numbers in the set) is zero. So in other words, it has no numbers in it.
Now, perhaps your going to say something like "oh look, you just used no in the same sense as zero, and that proves my point." Well no, it doesn't. Because yeah, in common language, no cats and zero cats have the same meaning.
But heres the thing. Zero implies that their is an absence of quantity, where as "no" implies lack of existence. "Nothing" doesn't exist. Like for example, lets try and multiply nothing.
.......
See what I did there? I multiplied nothing. I did nothing. And nothing happened.
Now, lets multiply zero.
7 x 0 = 0
See what happened there? We started from a tangible quantity(7), scaled it by some factor(0), and ended with a unique result(0).
Now to be fair, lets multiply seven by nothing.
7 = 7
See what I did there? I multiplied 7 by nothing. And I got 7. You wanna know why?
Because there was nothing to multiply it by.
Your error is assuming that absence in quantity equals nothing to quantify.
And that is wrong. Dead wrong.
If this post doesn't explain it to you, then you just can't grasp what math is at its core.
Me and my friend were actually talking about this earlier today and we both agreed zero was not a factual existing NUMBER.
I too have the perspective that Zero is just a 'placeholder' for nonexistence. Like your apple analogy, If you have zero apples in your room; there are no existing apples within that area of space.
Zero is neither negative nor positive for this reason; cause it's non-existent. Zero is just the numerical word for nonexistence IMO.
I too have the perspective that Zero is just a 'placeholder' for nonexistence. Like your apple analogy, If you have zero apples in your room; there are no existing apples within that area of space.
Zero is neither negative nor positive for this reason; cause it's non-existent. Zero is just the numerical word for nonexistence IMO.
Exactly, meaning that Zero of something, is nonexistent. Nonexistent is the same thing as zero. Zero is a numerical word for the nonexistence of something. That doesn't make zero a quantity; because you cannot count what does not exist. Although you can state that it does not exist (Thus, the creation of the numerical representation of nothing).ShredHexus said:
This would be all well and good if zero wasn't used to calculate anything, however, it is used in mathematics quite often. Since you can't use a nonexistent number, zero must be a real number.Guttural Engagement said:
Zero is yet again, just a placeholder for nothing. This works in mathematics because of addition and subtraction and because of negative/positive numbers. When you have less than zero of something, that just means you 'owe' a certain amount of that before you will be able to gain it for yourself (Like owing money to a credit card company). Technically, you can't multiply or divide something by zero (But it IS Theoretically possible), because with multiplication; you're just counting off how many groups of another number you have (7 * 0 would mean you have zero groups of seven. Meaning you have nothing). This still does not give zero a VALUE.Funkysandwich said:
What OP and me mean, is that Zero has no actual VALUE - it's nonexistent. The word Zero is just a placeholder for nothing. Neither positive nor negative.
An analogy for this would be matter, matter would be positive; and anti-matter would be negative. (Although, in terms of existence; there are only two sides - positive and negative, there isn't a "Zero").
Read the bloody thread, there have been god knows how many people saying the same crap over and over and it's already been proved that your point is not valid or correct. Basically your argument went out the window by about page 6.Guttural Engagement said:
I don't need to say any more, it's already been said.
I said it last page, I'll say it again. THIS IS NOT A POP PHILOSOPHY QUESTION WHERE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE CAN BE CALLED TRUE. IT IS A MATHEMATICAL QUESTION, AND AS SUCH MATHS CAN AND DOES ANSWER IT.
For anyone who actually cares what the true answer is, we've got mathematical reasons from mathematical people as to why zero is a number peppered all through this thread. We do set theory, Euler's identity, definitions of a number, all numbers as external constructs intangible without context, irrationals and imaginaries also being numbers (despite a lack of physical representation), context implying a lack of an expected thing as a valid real world representation of zero, an implied 'silent' zero of everything you are not currently observing, all sorts of good stuff. There are definite answers to such questions, and you too can know them, if you want to.
Or you can cling to ignorance, I guess nothing we could do can take that away unless you're willing to get rid of it.
For anyone who actually cares what the true answer is, we've got mathematical reasons from mathematical people as to why zero is a number peppered all through this thread. We do set theory, Euler's identity, definitions of a number, all numbers as external constructs intangible without context, irrationals and imaginaries also being numbers (despite a lack of physical representation), context implying a lack of an expected thing as a valid real world representation of zero, an implied 'silent' zero of everything you are not currently observing, all sorts of good stuff. There are definite answers to such questions, and you too can know them, if you want to.
Or you can cling to ignorance, I guess nothing we could do can take that away unless you're willing to get rid of it.
Okay, I understand where you are coming from, and I truly do consider it a great train of thought. However, while intelligent, it is misguided. In the case of your 'apple particle' idea, you are applying too much maths (I know right; too much maths? no such thing!). An apple is an entirety, and a common misconception (or perhaps just a lazy way of verbalising reality) is that a former piece of apple that is no longer an apple is merely a fraction of an apple. This is, in fact, a mistake. It is like the difference between spiritual truths and actual truths; while both contain the word 'truth' that doesn't mean they are both true. Now if we apply the same concept to 'half-eaten apple' and 'apple'; while both contain the word 'apple', the former is not an apple, but merely uses the term to describe a new entirety. So when you say "there is an apple particle and therefore 0.00000000001 apples" it is incorrect. While it is a good way to convey a message, the particle is not an apple, as an apple is a whole. Think of it like this, a carbon atom is not 0.2 methane particles, it is a carbon atom, and a methane, while containing carbon, is not carbon. I feel like I'm explaining this section badly, but my main point is that your example uses a poor analogy, as an 'apple particle' is not an apple.crystalsnow said:
As for seeing '0 cats'. If there is no cat in your vision right now, you are seeing 0 cats, because 0 cats is an absence of cats, and therefore, if you see a lack of cats, you are seeing 0 cats. The idea of 0 is that it perfectly describes the number of an object present. The best way I can describe it (through the use of what I presume is an analogy) is this.
Action and inaction are merely two words used to describe components of an existential whole: "action". While the component and the whole share a name, they are not identical, as the component is misconstrued to mean a motion, or changing event which produces results, whilst an inaction is used to describe a motionless occurence. However, an inaction is merely a form of action, as it is a degree to which someone reacts, just with zero motion. Once aagin, I feel that my wording fails to capture the concept properly, but the idea is that an absence of something (zero quantity) is merely a unit of measurement (a number) just as three of something is a unit of measurement. What I'm trying to say is that an absence of something and the presence of something are merely two components of the whole (the whole being "existence" and the components being ways in which they are measured).
So yeah, zero is a number, just as one, two, negative eight and every other one is. The only issue is that people seek to form black and white distinctions between these things, rather than experiencing the entirety of the concept.
Ok ill usea different example. Every civilisation ever discovered that had some form of counting. Even though many had no concept of zero. Notice i say civilisation. I mean like successfull, the egyptions, the romans, the byzantians, the aztecs, the myans, ALL could count despite never meeting eachother. Its a natural evolution of civilisation to adopt the counting structure. All had a concept of 1 thing.bad rider said: