is 0 even or odd?

[InfiniteSingularity]

Zero cannot be either because it has no value

Edit: Wikipedia proved me wrong :/

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

ah, yes. I could say: you have me there. because your calculation is mathematically 100% correct.

however, the abstract of 'a third' means, by definition, that when multiplied by three, they make a whole. 0.9*recurring is not QUITE a whole. this can only lead us to the logical conclusion that 1/3 is NOT exactly equal tot 0.3*recurring.
it's the closest thing there is when translating 1/3 to decimals, but a little bit is, as they say, lost in translation ^^

I like your proof though

So you're saying that not all rational numbers are real numbers? (1/3 = rational, 0.3*recurring = real)

And that Q is not a subset of R?

0.9*recurring = 1

 

[4li3n]

In physics, yes.
In mathematics, there is no such thing as "real things". Math is not concerned with anything outside the current theory (Postulate Set + Derived Theorems + whatever beverages the mathematician currently possesses).
If something happens to coincide with real world / have external applications, good for them - and entirely irrelevant for math.

Math started out as a representation of the real world, and being what it is can't change that, no matter how esoteric it becomes because of it's and realities very nature.

Not finding an external application for the new math you just discovered doesn't mean it's not still an abstract representation of something real, just like not knowing what gravity is made out of doesn't mean there's no cause for the phenomenon of gravity.

Not starting with real life concepts to get new theorems just saves on time, because reality, like math, has immutable laws (and if it doesn't then reality is a lie).

Philosophy has fewer rigid rules and doesn't really do axioms very often. You could say that Math creates rigidly defined worlds and explores them, philosophy applies loosely defined concepts to existing worlds to explode explore them.

Which is why philosophy can actually have purely abstract notions in it. Math's rules are limited by reality...

 

[4li3n]

Zero cannot be either because it has no value

Nothing is a value, as values themselves are abstract... which is why 1 apple and 1 orange are both 1 and yet aren't the same.

 

[shadowsandwich]

0,1,2
even,odd,even

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

If you have a problem with that proof (Although I don't see one):

1/3 = 0.3*recurring

3/3 = 1

3/3 = (1/3) * 3 = (0.3*recurring) * 3 = 0.9*recurring

Therefore:

1 = 0.9*recurring

ah, yes. I could say: you have me there. because your calculation is mathematically 100% correct.

however, the abstract of 'a third' means, by definition, that when multiplied by three, they make a whole. 0.9*recurring is not QUITE a whole. this can only lead us to the logical conclusion that 1/3 is NOT exactly equal tot 0.3*recurring.
it's the closest thing there is when translating 1/3 to decimals, but a little bit is, as they say, lost in translation ^^

I like your proof though

I can do it without a third.

X = 0.9 recurring
10x = 9.9999 recurring
10x - x = 9 because 0.9999 recurring - 0.999 recurring is 0
9x = 9
x = 1

 

[Outright Villainy]

I love how people, with no knowledge of maths, assume they can make base assumptions about maths.

Gotta love humans.

 

[Hagi]

If you have a problem with that proof (Although I don't see one):

1/3 = 0.3*recurring

3/3 = 1

3/3 = (1/3) * 3 = (0.3*recurring) * 3 = 0.9*recurring

Therefore:

1 = 0.9*recurring

ah, yes. I could say: you have me there. because your calculation is mathematically 100% correct.

however, the abstract of 'a third' means, by definition, that when multiplied by three, they make a whole. 0.9*recurring is not QUITE a whole. this can only lead us to the logical conclusion that 1/3 is NOT exactly equal tot 0.3*recurring.
it's the closest thing there is when translating 1/3 to decimals, but a little bit is, as they say, lost in translation ^^

I like your proof though

I can do it without a third.

X = 0.9 recurring
10x = 9.9999 recurring
10x - x = 9 because 0.9999 recurring - 0.999 recurring is 0
9x = 9
x = 1

And thus the circle is completed and we can start again.

 

[funguy2121]

A simple trip to ask.com or an elementary math textbook would answer this question. 0 is neither.

 

[Locke_Cole]

A simple trip to ask.com or an elementary math textbook would answer this question. 0 is neither.

Well that sounds like excellent advice!
http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Zero-Even-Odd-or-Neither
I can totally see where you got nei--wait a minute...

 

[funguy2121]

A simple trip to ask.com or an elementary math textbook would answer this question. 0 is neither.

Well that sounds like excellent advice!
http://www.ask.com/questions-about/Zero-Even-Odd-or-Neither
I can totally see where you got nei--wait a minute...

I stand corrected. Never underestimate the power of nerd pollution on the internet. I believe every one of those responses began with "if you assume X..." which of course I don't. Zero isn't even or odd.

 

[funguy2121]

It's even.

A number is even if it is divisible by 2 with no remainder.

I really hope you dont honestly believe that.

...Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero] agrees with me, sir.

I remember when we nerds were supposed to be considered intelligent. What happened to that? When did we start using wikipedia as the gold standard? I changed wikipedia 2 months ago, knowing it was bullshit - wikipedia is not a gold standard.

 

[4li3n]

I remember when we nerds were supposed to be considered intelligent. What happened to that? When did we start using wikipedia as the gold standard? I changed wikipedia 2 months ago, knowing it was bullshit - wikipedia is not a gold standard.

Then use the gold standard to disprove it. That's actually how sourcing something works...

 

[Jewrean]

I'm a Mathematics teacher. The 'number' two fits the definition of an even number as it is in-fact a multiple of 2:

2x0 = 2.

Its parity is even.

Although I don't often recommend Wikipedia as a reference, reading this MAY help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero

Many people are also claiming that Zero is not an integer:
"Integer - A member of the set of positive whole numbers 1, 2, 3,... , negative whole numbers -1, -2, -3,... , and zero {0}."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

Although these facts are debatable, they are called definitions for a reason. These definitions and rules CAN change if you prove them wrong. Just as new formulas are discovered, old formulas can be refined. The problem is that the concept of 0 is simply too hard to work with as it fits both descriptions of being 'even' and 'neither' as well as being an integer and NOT being an integer.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Zero is even. Because 0=2*0.

 

[Bluesclues]

I'm a Mathematics teacher. The 'number' two fits the definition of an even number as it is in-fact a multiple of 2:

2x0 = 2.

Its parity is even.

Although I don't often recommend Wikipedia as a reference, reading this MAY help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero

Many people are also claiming that Zero is not an integer:
"Integer - A member of the set of positive whole numbers 1, 2, 3,... , negative whole numbers -1, -2, -3,... , and zero {0}."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

Well, considering that Wikipedia no longer allows original research, it's actually a reliable source of information.

OT: Why are we still on this topic? I've read through the entire thread and the answer was given about 3 dozen times over.

 

[thatcanadianguy]

0 is nothing, and everything
0 is the darkness, and the light.
0 is the beginning and the end. when things are born into this world. they are 0, and as thy leave it, they become 0 again.

0 does not fear the reaper

and 0 will fu** your sh** up if you divide by it.

also. its even

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I don't see why people always use this proof when proving 0.99... = 1. do people not like sequences and series?

Because it works? Unless you wish to argue that f(x)=9x isn't a bijective function or that g(x) =10x-x does not equal f(x)?

Well that is a pretty poor reason. I am asking what makes the algebraic proof so much more superior to the Geometric series proof. At least with the geometric series no one can say the 9a is not 9. As because 0.999 recurring is 1 it makes the 8.9999... = 9. You can't even try to argue with the infinite Geometric series version. Not that you have a leg to stand on either way.

 

[the_green_dragon]

How did people get banned/warnings for this post? It's not offense or anything!

 

[theklng]

Neither.... zero is not a number, but a lack there of.

This is the answer if you ask any math teacher/professor and I agree with it.

zero is a number, so this is untrue. however, zero is also neither even nor uneven.