is 0 even or odd?

[AlexMBrennan]

Algebraic proof: You interchange multiplication and infinite summation - 10x sum(9x0.1^n) = sum(10x9x0.1^n) which I'd avoid - to avoid that you'd have to deal with limits.
For the geometric series proof you, again, assume the result than sum(r^n)=(1-r)^-1 which also requires limits - if people don't believe that 0.9* = 1 then they'd probably not believe that 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ... = 1/9 either.
So if you're going to prove that 1=0.9* you might just as well do it properly. Let epsilon>0, let a_n = sum(9x0.1^k) for k=1 to n. Then there is an N st for n>N, |a_n - 1| < epsilon. Hence 0.9* = limit a_n = 1

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

From my formulae and tables book Z(this is the integer set)=(....-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....)

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.

Thanks for letting me know. Wikipedia is still not, on its own, a reliable source of information.

No Wiki on its own is not a 100% reliable source. It is good for a quick summary or overview of a topic but if you want to go in depth you usually look at the citations or google for other sources.

 

[funguy2121]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

From my formulae and tables book Z(this is the integer set)=(....-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....)

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.

Thanks for letting me know. Wikipedia is still not, on its own, a reliable source of information.

No Wiki on its own is not a 100% reliable source. It is good for a quick summary or overview of a topic but if you want to go in depth you usually look at the citations or google for other sources.

I stand corrected. 0 is indeed an integer. I must have been thinking Sprockets integers. But how does this make zero "even?" It's not a multiple of 2. It's not even really an amount, just the mathematical symbol for nuthin'.

I'm glad we agree on Wikipedia. This is why it's ineffective as a tool in a debate. If you have to source something, then look at those sources for verification, and also look to see if management has tagged it for cleanup (assuming they've gotten to it), then it has no real weight as evidence. It does work just fine as a sort of springboard when you're first researching something, though.

 

[drummond13]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

True, Wikipedia is not 100%. But again, it IS right in this case. 0 is an integer and it IS even. Please explain to us why you disagree if you want to be taken seriously here. You're contradicting a basic rule of math.

I explained earlier, as did others on this very page. If 0 being an even number is considered a basic rule of math then it must be a recently new development, and I have yet to see any of you nitty-nit-nit-pickers source anything other than Wikipedia (with "and I say it's correct!" as supporting evidence) and other forums. I could similarly claim that "My Little Pony sucks!" and as support, link to another Escapist thread or a 4Chan forum entitled just that. This would not, however, make my case.

And being taken seriously by those who would argue over whether 0 is an even number for 11 pages is not chief among my concerns.

0 is not 2, nor is it a multiple of 2. Present to me an argument that doesn't begin with "if you assume that..." and we'll talk. Until then, 0 not =ing 2 or a multiple thereof is enough for me to not consider it an even number just because someone on the internet (who isn't a mathematician) said so.

Patronize me one more time and you run the serious risk of being Fez'd.

Apparently being taken seriously by us IS a concern of yours.

The only arguments that have begun with "if you assume that..." are those that then go on to quote the definition of being an even number. By any mathematical definition of what makes an even number even, zero is even. I like how you felt the need to point out that zero was not 2. I must have missed the argument that stated that it was. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure this out.

As for your assertion that zero isn't an integer, well gee, would you like to look up the definition of what an integer is? Again, this isn't exactly a debatable thing.

If you don't want to be patronized, don't say easily disprovable things about math. This isn't a subjective topic. There's only one right answer here and it isn't the one you're arguing so adamantly in favor of.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

From my formulae and tables book Z(this is the integer set)=(....-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3....)

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.

Thanks for letting me know. Wikipedia is still not, on its own, a reliable source of information.

No Wiki on its own is not a 100% reliable source. It is good for a quick summary or overview of a topic but if you want to go in depth you usually look at the citations or google for other sources.

I stand corrected. 0 is indeed an integer. I must have been thinking Sprockets integers. But how does this make zero "even?" It's not a multiple of 2. It's not even really an amount, just the mathematical symbol for nuthin'.

I'm glad we agree on Wikipedia. This is why it's ineffective as a tool in a debate. If you have to source something, then look at those sources for verification, and also look to see if management has tagged it for cleanup (assuming they've gotten to it), then it has no real weight as evidence. It does work just fine as a sort of springboard when you're first researching something, though.

Ok 0 is a multiple of 2 because it is divisible by 2 without leaving a remainder. Like 2*1=2 but 2/2=1 same as 2*0=0 and 0/2=0. The only thing about 0 is when you multiply by it you get 0. So it is a unique number like when you Multiply 1 by anything you get the same number. The thing of 0 being an integer is important as an Integer must be either odd or even. Also any even number is found by 2A and an odd one is found by 2A - 1. 0 is found with 2A. Although another way of proving it is even is kinda by a cop out. It is between -1 and 1. -1 and 1 are odd numbers so therefore 0 is even as it goes odd even odd or even odd even whichever number at which you start.

I hope that clears everything up.

 

[Coldie]

0 is not 2, nor is it a multiple of 2. Present to me an argument that doesn't begin with "if you assume that..." and we'll talk. Until then, 0 not =ing 2 or a multiple thereof is enough for me to not consider it an even number just because someone on the internet (who isn't a mathematician) said so.

0 is a multiple of 2.

0 = 2 * 0

If you don't trush wikipedia, you can ask something that is a "mathematician", of sorts: is 0 an even number? [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+0+an+even+number%3F]
You can ask other stuff, like "is 0 an integer". Or anything, really.

 

[funguy2121]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

True, Wikipedia is not 100%. But again, it IS right in this case. 0 is an integer and it IS even. Please explain to us why you disagree if you want to be taken seriously here. You're contradicting a basic rule of math.

I explained earlier, as did others on this very page. If 0 being an even number is considered a basic rule of math then it must be a recently new development, and I have yet to see any of you nitty-nit-nit-pickers source anything other than Wikipedia (with "and I say it's correct!" as supporting evidence) and other forums. I could similarly claim that "My Little Pony sucks!" and as support, link to another Escapist thread or a 4Chan forum entitled just that. This would not, however, make my case.

And being taken seriously by those who would argue over whether 0 is an even number for 11 pages is not chief among my concerns.

0 is not 2, nor is it a multiple of 2. Present to me an argument that doesn't begin with "if you assume that..." and we'll talk. Until then, 0 not =ing 2 or a multiple thereof is enough for me to not consider it an even number just because someone on the internet (who isn't a mathematician) said so.

Patronize me one more time and you run the serious risk of being Fez'd.

Apparently being taken seriously by us IS a concern of yours.

(1)The only arguments that have begun with "if you assume that..." are those that then go on to quote the definition of being an even number. By any mathematical definition of what makes an even number even, zero is even. (2)I like how you felt the need to point out that zero was not 2. I must have missed the argument that stated that it was. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure this out.

(3)As for your assertion that zero isn't an integer, well gee, would you like to look up the definition of what an integer is? Again, this isn't exactly a debatable thing.

If you don't want to be patronized, don't say easily disprovable things about math. This isn't a subjective topic. (4)There's only one right answer here and it isn't the one you're arguing so adamantly in favor of.

Please love me, please!

This is as appropriate a situation as any to do it by the numbers, so...

(1) I looked at some sources provided back when this was only a few pages long, and all of them were in comments sections and said, "Well, if you're going based on this... (this being an arbitrary assertion, some of which were thoughtful but not necessarily accurate and none having anything to do with established mathematical rules)" I was clear about this. And asserting that zero is even is not "quoting the definition of zero," Mr. Man.

(2)But you just read, and quoted, and referred to it.

(3)I just recognized my mistake and corrected it, so you may have missed it. But I'm not giving you my number.

(4)What does Wolverine have to do with any of this?


(You were warned. You made me do this!)

 

[drummond13]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

True, Wikipedia is not 100%. But again, it IS right in this case. 0 is an integer and it IS even. Please explain to us why you disagree if you want to be taken seriously here. You're contradicting a basic rule of math.

I explained earlier, as did others on this very page. If 0 being an even number is considered a basic rule of math then it must be a recently new development, and I have yet to see any of you nitty-nit-nit-pickers source anything other than Wikipedia (with "and I say it's correct!" as supporting evidence) and other forums. I could similarly claim that "My Little Pony sucks!" and as support, link to another Escapist thread or a 4Chan forum entitled just that. This would not, however, make my case.

And being taken seriously by those who would argue over whether 0 is an even number for 11 pages is not chief among my concerns.

0 is not 2, nor is it a multiple of 2. Present to me an argument that doesn't begin with "if you assume that..." and we'll talk. Until then, 0 not =ing 2 or a multiple thereof is enough for me to not consider it an even number just because someone on the internet (who isn't a mathematician) said so.

Patronize me one more time and you run the serious risk of being Fez'd.

Apparently being taken seriously by us IS a concern of yours.

(1)The only arguments that have begun with "if you assume that..." are those that then go on to quote the definition of being an even number. By any mathematical definition of what makes an even number even, zero is even. (2)I like how you felt the need to point out that zero was not 2. I must have missed the argument that stated that it was. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure this out.

(3)As for your assertion that zero isn't an integer, well gee, would you like to look up the definition of what an integer is? Again, this isn't exactly a debatable thing.

If you don't want to be patronized, don't say easily disprovable things about math. This isn't a subjective topic. (4)There's only one right answer here and it isn't the one you're arguing so adamantly in favor of.

Please love me, please!

This is as appropriate a situation as any to do it by the numbers, so...

(1) I looked at some sources provided back when this was only a few pages long, and all of them were in comments sections and said, "Well, if you're going based on this... (this being an arbitrary assertion, some of which were thoughtful but not necessarily accurate and none having anything to do with established mathematical rules)" I was clear about this. And asserting that zero is even is not "quoting the definition of zero," Mr. Man.

(2)But you just read, and quoted, and referred to it.

(3)I just recognized my mistake and corrected it, so you may have missed it. But I'm not giving you my number.

(4)What does Wolverine have to do with any of this?


(You were warned. You made me do this!)

1: Plenty of other people have defined both zero and even numbers. I don't feel the need to repeat it all here.

2: I have no idea what you mean by this.

3: Very big of you. Maybe now you'll be open to the fact that you're wrong about whether it's even or not as well? I appreciate the desperate hint to ask you for your number but I'm happily engaged.

4: lol. No, seriously, that was actually pretty funny.

 

[funguy2121]

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...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, no matter how snooty you are when you source it. That's how reliable information works. Zero is not an integer.

True, Wikipedia is not 100%. But again, it IS right in this case. 0 is an integer and it IS even. Please explain to us why you disagree if you want to be taken seriously here. You're contradicting a basic rule of math.

I explained earlier, as did others on this very page. If 0 being an even number is considered a basic rule of math then it must be a recently new development, and I have yet to see any of you nitty-nit-nit-pickers source anything other than Wikipedia (with "and I say it's correct!" as supporting evidence) and other forums. I could similarly claim that "My Little Pony sucks!" and as support, link to another Escapist thread or a 4Chan forum entitled just that. This would not, however, make my case.

And being taken seriously by those who would argue over whether 0 is an even number for 11 pages is not chief among my concerns.

0 is not 2, nor is it a multiple of 2. Present to me an argument that doesn't begin with "if you assume that..." and we'll talk. Until then, 0 not =ing 2 or a multiple thereof is enough for me to not consider it an even number just because someone on the internet (who isn't a mathematician) said so.

Patronize me one more time and you run the serious risk of being Fez'd.

Apparently being taken seriously by us IS a concern of yours.

(1)The only arguments that have begun with "if you assume that..." are those that then go on to quote the definition of being an even number. By any mathematical definition of what makes an even number even, zero is even. (2)I like how you felt the need to point out that zero was not 2. I must have missed the argument that stated that it was. You don't have to be a mathematician to figure this out.

(3)As for your assertion that zero isn't an integer, well gee, would you like to look up the definition of what an integer is? Again, this isn't exactly a debatable thing.

If you don't want to be patronized, don't say easily disprovable things about math. This isn't a subjective topic. (4)There's only one right answer here and it isn't the one you're arguing so adamantly in favor of.

Please love me, please!

This is as appropriate a situation as any to do it by the numbers, so...

(1) I looked at some sources provided back when this was only a few pages long, and all of them were in comments sections and said, "Well, if you're going based on this... (this being an arbitrary assertion, some of which were thoughtful but not necessarily accurate and none having anything to do with established mathematical rules)" I was clear about this. And asserting that zero is even is not "quoting the definition of zero," Mr. Man.

(2)But you just read, and quoted, and referred to it.

(3)I just recognized my mistake and corrected it, so you may have missed it. But I'm not giving you my number.

(4)What does Wolverine have to do with any of this?


(You were warned. You made me do this!)

1: Plenty of other people have defined both zero and even numbers. I don't feel the need to repeat it all here.

2: I have no idea what you mean by this.

3: Very big of you. Maybe now you'll be open to the fact that you're wrong about whether it's even or not as well? I appreciate the desperate hint to ask you for your number but I'm happily engaged.

4: lol. No, seriously, that was actually pretty funny.

I said good day, sir! That's that.

 

[drummond13]

I said good day, sir! That's that.

Is that what your video said? I didn't watch it. And if you had REALLY said good day, then you would have responded again.

Go do your own research. At this point I don't think any facts quoted on this board will convince you. Have a good one.

 

[Denamic]

People seriously need to stop using that shit now.
If you're able to understand this kind of explanation, you should also realize the unreasonable jump in logic in it.

People seriously need to stop saying there are flaws without actually pointing them out....

I shouldn't need to.

 

[drummond13]

People seriously need to stop using that shit now.
If you're able to understand this kind of explanation, you should also realize the unreasonable jump in logic in it.

People seriously need to stop saying there are flaws without actually pointing them out....

I shouldn't need to.

Well, you DO need to in this case. There are multiple mathematical proofs of this that have no jumps in logic at all. Some of them have even been posted on this thread. If you disagree, that's fine. But you need to actually back it up with something. You're disagreeing with an established mathematical fact, albeit a nonintuitive one.

 

[Dominic Corner]

I shouldn't need to.

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You're disagreeing with an established mathematical fact, albeit a nonintuitive one.

I'd say it was entirely intuitive. It even works as a thought experiment, without getting all that pesky maths involved (all three lines of it)...

In order for the two numbers to be different, there needs to be a difference between them (something you can add to the smaller number to make the larger). No matter how far down the row of 9s you go, there is never any point where a difference will ever present itself, therefore there is no difference and they must be the same number.

 

[blankedboy]

Okay, and you give me the fucking square root of -1. "i" may not be physically definable but it's still a number >.>
Yeesh.

Precisely my point. (and -1 is me taking an apple away from you, welcome to how these numbers came to be in the first place).

By your logic, neither of us giving apples will result in a 0, so I can just do that twice. :/

 

[Denamic]

I shouldn't need to.

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You're disagreeing with an established mathematical fact, albeit a nonintuitive one.

I'd say it was entirely intuitive. It even works as a thought experiment, without getting all that pesky maths involved (all three lines of it)...

In order for the two numbers to be different, there needs to be a difference between them (something you can add to the smaller number to make the larger). No matter how far down the row of 9s you go, there is never any point where a difference will ever present itself, therefore there is no difference and they must be the same number.

The fact remains that you multiplied a number with decimals.
Those decimals are no longer the same as the original number.
You've introduced change to the decimals, and you cannot just assert that they are the same because they 'look' the same.
That is not 'intuitive'.

 

[bojac6]

I shouldn't need to.

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You're disagreeing with an established mathematical fact, albeit a nonintuitive one.

I'd say it was entirely intuitive. It even works as a thought experiment, without getting all that pesky maths involved (all three lines of it)...

In order for the two numbers to be different, there needs to be a difference between them (something you can add to the smaller number to make the larger). No matter how far down the row of 9s you go, there is never any point where a difference will ever present itself, therefore there is no difference and they must be the same number.

The fact remains that you multiplied a number with decimals.
Those decimals are no longer the same as the original number.
You've introduced change to the decimals, and you cannot just assert that they are the same because they 'look' the same.
That is not 'intuitive'.

So your argument is that 10 multiplied by .9* is not 9.9* but something else? I just don't understand. Multiplication is simple arithmetic, and keeping both sides of the equation balanced is basic algebra. What part of that is not the same or not intuitive?

 

[AlexMBrennan]

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You are interchanging multiplication and infinite summation, so you need to justify why you can do that here.

The fact remains that you multiplied a number with decimals.
Those decimals are no longer the same as the original number.
You've introduced change to the decimals, and you cannot just assert that they are the same because they 'look' the same.
That is not 'intuitive'.

OK, what does that even mean?

 

[drummond13]

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You are interchanging multiplication and infinite summation, so you need to justify why you can do that here.

Because just because a number goes on forever doesn't mean you can't multiply it by 10. .9999... times 10 is 9.9999... As with any other number, when you multiply it by ten, you simply move the decimal point one space to the right.

 

[bojac6]

Forgetting for a moment that you absolutely do need to point out what the flaws are in order for it to be a valid argument; there is no flaw, it was 100% correct and there was no leap in logic whatsoever... Just because you don't follow the proof, doesn't mean it is a false one.

For x = 0.9*

10x = 9.9*
9x = 9
x = 1

0.9* == 1

The logic is sound, complete, and requires no assumptions...

You are interchanging multiplication and infinite summation, so you need to justify why you can do that here.

Infinite Summation has nothing to do with this. 0.9* is simply a repeating decimal, not a series.

Here is the proof with all the steps put into it, I think this helps clear this up.

Let x = 0.9*
10x = 9.9* (because we multiplied both sides by 10)
10x - x = 9.9* - x (subtract x from both sides)
9x = 9.9* - 0.9* (because 10x-x = 9x and x = .9*)
9x = 9 (because 9.9* - 0.9* = 9)
9x/9 = 9/9 (divide both sides by 9)
x = 1 (Finish the last step)
0.9* = 1 (because x = 0.9*)

 

[ThunderDumpling]

I can't believe something like this has 12 pages of replies... I am disappoint...