is 0 even or odd?

Recommended Videos
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
funguy2121 said:
AnOriginalConcept said:
MaxPowers666 said:
AnOriginalConcept said:
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.
Every website bar 1 on the first page of googling is 0 even or odd comes up with even and in this case the Wiki article is right and so is my maths book. Also so is observation.
 

Womplord

New member
Feb 14, 2010
390
0
0
It's even. It follows the formula 2a where a is an integer. It does not follow the formula 2a+1 where a is an integer.
 

MrGalactus

Elite Member
Sep 18, 2010
1,848
0
41
Well, the pattern is even-odd-even-odd-even-odd. 1 is odd, 2 is even, -1 is odd, -2 is even, so I guess 0 is even.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
Fagotto said:
riverand said:
Zantos said:
Custard_Angel said:
Neither... Zero is not an integer.

The concept of even and odd only applies to integers therefore 2 is even, 3 is odd, 3.5 is neither and 0 is neither also.
Actually zero is an element in the set of integers (the Z set).

Strictly speaking it's even, since when you do set mappings you use 2*n for evens and 2n+(or -)1 for odds where n is an integer. However the principle of odd and even is only really used in natural number mappings, and 0 is not a natural number. So essentially from an analytical maths perspective it doesn't really matter but for the sake of completeness it's even.
Preach on, Zantos! I'm a high school math teacher practically hyperventilating over here with the responses. You set my mind at ease, I will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that your response is out there.
:)
I'm just a college student majoring in computer engineering and this is making me want to strangle something XP

I wonder about how far the people in this thread have gone in math...
What is more shocking the lack of use of a search bar. Although on a forum not using a search bar is to be expected but if you just google the question you get the answer.
 

Zantos

New member
Jan 5, 2011
3,652
0
0
riverand said:
Zantos said:
Custard_Angel said:
Neither... Zero is not an integer.

The concept of even and odd only applies to integers therefore 2 is even, 3 is odd, 3.5 is neither and 0 is neither also.
Actually zero is an element in the set of integers (the Z set).

Strictly speaking it's even, since when you do set mappings you use 2*n for evens and 2n+(or -)1 for odds where n is an integer. However the principle of odd and even is only really used in natural number mappings, and 0 is not a natural number. So essentially from an analytical maths perspective it doesn't really matter but for the sake of completeness it's even.
Preach on, Zantos! I'm a high school math teacher practically hyperventilating over here with the responses. You set my mind at ease, I will be able to sleep soundly tonight knowing that your response is out there.
:)
I'm glad I could help. However would it spoil it if I said this is the ONLY time I've ever used set theory outside of an exam?

crudus said:
Zantos said:
0 is not a natural number.
Actually that just depends on who you ask. Zero is "sometimes" considered natural. "Natural Number" is actually kind of an ambiguous term to begin with
Fair enough. Our maths department is one of the "If you try to index zero in the natural numbers you WILL be beaten to death with a proof by induction" ones. I don't know how it's taught elsewhere, but I did not want to cross the man with the huge wad of proofs.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
Heathrow said:
zfactor said:
Um, yeah, you can. You just get zero. It is also by definition, even. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
Yes, okay. But how do you tell two chunks of nothing divided into equal groups apart from one big bunch of nothing with a set of scales in it? For that matter, what if you have three equal groups of nothing?

Mathematicians are lazy and the only reason 0 is technically even is because it fits the oversimplified definition of parity.
If you don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand that 0x=0 for all real values of x, then you don't have enough knowledge to form an opinion on what is lazy or not.

But I'll explain it to you.

Let's say you have three boxes, and each contains zero cookies. If you dump the 'contents' of all three boxes together, you will end up with no cookies. Cookies will not magically appear out of thin air. That's why it works. This proves simultaneously that three times zero = zero, and as well, zero divided by three equals zero because if you take those zero cookies and equally distribute back into their original packages, each package still gets zero cookies. This remains true for every number of boxes.

And the reason zero is even is because zero is divisible by 2.

Someone needs to go back to grade 3 math class.
 

UltraXan

New member
Mar 1, 2011
288
0
0
I'm in math class right now, and when I saw the title of this thread, I immediately asked my math teacher:

"Hey, miss, I have a question."
"I have an answer."
"Is zero even or odd?"
"Oh... ummm... It's negative!"
 

KarmicToast

New member
Nov 11, 2008
458
0
0
Why are there over 300 responses to this simple question? Here's the answer from an engineering PhD (me)

Zero is even. Even is definable by the ability to evenly divide by two. Zero is an integer. Zero is a number.

What some of you smarties are trying to argue is that zero is an abstract concept of nothing, however, mathematically, as a separator between -1 and 1, it exists as a concrete construct. Making the argument that zero is a non-entity and doesn't exist would be that same as arguing that black is not a color. Black is a color, though the absence of color produces black. It's basic logic kiddies, sort of like "all vikings have blond hair, but not all people with blond hair are vikings.

I don't even know why I am wasting my time writing this. Zero is a number. Zero is even. Sheesh.
 

bojac6

New member
Oct 15, 2009
489
0
0
flaming_ninja said:
0.9*recurring is not equal to 1 because no matter how infinitesimally small the difference is, the difference exists.

And 0 is a number and a digit and an integer (ask any programmer) and it IS even.
1/3 = .33(recurring). Multiply both sides by 3.

3/3=.99(recurring)

So unless you care to argue that three thirds is less than 1, .9 recurring is equal to 1.
 

Spinelloccio

New member
Nov 19, 2009
2
0
0
A well-accepted "definition" of even is:

For an integer x, if x mod 2 = 0, then x is even.

mod 2 refers to the divisibility of x by 2. It is a fancy way of taking the "remainder" from elementary division.

Dividing 0 by 2, we can clearly see that 0 mod 2 is, in fact, 0. Therefore, we conclude that 0 is even. If you're not convinced that 0 is not an integer: To the Google!
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
You can say that zero is even because it is divisible by two, but that isn't technically true, because zero is nothing and you can't split nothing. Yes you can say "if you divide nothing among three people each person has nothing" but that is because nothing was split, there was nothing there ever and could not be split among any number of people, so zero is neither even, nor odd
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
flaming_ninja said:
0.9*recurring is not equal to 1 because no matter how infinitesimally small the difference is, the difference exists.
Yeah, you might want to actually look that up.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
bojac6 said:
flaming_ninja said:
0.9*recurring is not equal to 1 because no matter how infinitesimally small the difference is, the difference exists.

And 0 is a number and a digit and an integer (ask any programmer) and it IS even.
1/3 = .33(recurring). Multiply both sides by 3.

3/3=.99(recurring)

So unless you care to argue that three thirds is less than 1, .9 recurring is equal to 1.
.99 repeating is approximately 1, it is never and has never actually been equal to 1, and 1/3 is approximately .33 repeating, it is not actually possible to divide and even amount of something by an odd amount of something which is why we approximate it
 

drummond13

New member
Apr 28, 2008
459
0
0
Floppertje said:
Hagi said:
flaming_ninja said:
0.9*recurring is not equal to 1 because no matter how infinitesimally small the difference is, the difference exists.
10 * 0.9*recurring = 9.9*recurring. (simply switch the decimal point one place as always when multiplying by ten)
9.9*recurring - 0.9*recurring = 9. (beyond the decimal point these numbers are identical.)
10 * 0.9*recurring - 0.9*recurring = 9 * 0.9*recurring = 9. (10 * a - a = 9 * a. By the definition of multiplication.)
9 * 0.9*recurring = 9 * 1.
0.9*recurring = 1.

No difference at all. Not even an infinitely small one.
this AGAIN? seriously, pack that shit in! it's not true. 0.9 recurring = 0.9 recurring, 1 = 1.

besides, I think there's a flaw in your third step. how is 9 * 0.9*recurring equal to 9? it would be equal to 8.9*recurring if my brain works (probably doesn't right now) but I'm pretty sure 9*0.9*recurring is NOT equal to 9. because if it was, you're already assuming 0.9*recurring = 1, before having proven it.

so there is a difference and no amount of flawed mathematics are going to convince me any different.

This isn't flawed mathematics. And there are several other proofs of this out there. Look them up.

This is math. Just because you don't believe it's true doesn't make it any less true. You look more than a little silly when you so fervently deny something like this.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
drummond13 said:
flaming_ninja said:
0.9*recurring is not equal to 1 because no matter how infinitesimally small the difference is, the difference exists.
Yeah, you might want to actually look that up.
he is right, 0.99 repeating is never equal to one, but it is generally approximated as 1
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,739
0
0
artanis_neravar said:
You can say that zero is even because it is divisible by two, but that isn't technically true, because zero is nothing and you can't split nothing. Yes you can say "if you divide nothing among three people each person has nothing" but that is because nothing was split, there was nothing there ever and could not be split among any number of people, so zero is neither even, nor odd
In maths Ø (empty set) is nothing. 0 is an element of Z (integers).

The splitting thing is an elementary school flawed example that helps kids with no knowledge of maths understand the concept of division. Personally I'd prefer to base my math on actual axioma (a number if even if there's an N in Z for which 2N is that number, in the case of 0 that N is, surprise, 0) instead of elementary school examples.....