....Well fuck...Kingpopadopalus said:Bad math is bad. 1 can be split equally into two groups as well. .5 and .5blaqknoise said:Even. You can split it equally into two groups.
...Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero] agrees with me, sir.MaxPowers666 said:I really hope you dont honestly believe that.AnOriginalConcept said:It's even.
A number is even if it is divisible by 2 with no remainder.
0 is the integer immediately preceding 1. In most cultures, 0 was identified before the idea of negative things that go lower than zero was accepted. Zero is an even number,[4] because it is divisible by 2. 0 is neither positive nor negative. By some definitions 0 is also a natural number, and then the only natural number not to be positive. Zero is a number which quantifies a count or an amount of null size.
6.Heathrow said: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?zfactor said:Um, yeah, you can. You just get zero. It is also by definition, even. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
Mathematicians are lazy and the only reason 0 is technically even is because it fits the oversimplified definition of parity.
Um, no. To the "technical standpoint" it's even. Not because it has an "even feel" to it. It actually is even.0p3rati0n said:To the technical standpoint it's neither. It does however have the "even feel" to it. Probably because it's between -1 and 1 which are odd so our brains create it as an even although it's not.
agree with this, depends on the perspective but alot of people seem to go the "n" route, so i will call it even based on that .Zantos said:Actually zero is an element in the set of integers (the Z set).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.
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.
Actually, blaqknoise was correct. Dividing one by two gets you a fraction. In order for something to be even, dividing it by two has to equal an integer. One half is not an integer. But zero is an integer. 0/2 equals 0, which is an integer. So, 0 is even.blaqknoise said:....Well fuck...Kingpopadopalus said:Bad math is bad. 1 can be split equally into two groups as well. .5 and .5blaqknoise said:Even. You can split it equally into two groups.
Good catch, sir. outrage blinded my typing. FixingFagotto said:I think you need to correct that first part. It should be more like 'A real number k is even if k = 2*n where n is an integer"poppabaggins said:the lack of math knowledge here is appalling.
zero is even
proof by definition:
a real number n is even if 2*n is an integer.
0 is an integer (by the definition of the set of integers)
therefore, 0 is a real number (the set of integers is a subset of the set of real numbers)
2*0 = 0
0 is even QED
this site has a fairly multinational userbase, and I have counted answers both correct and incorrect from 3 separate countries. so much for "stupid americans" and their bad math skills.
well what is the alternative though? if you don't qualify 0 as an integer then is it still a real number at least? if not then you're basically cutting up the number line, you get -.000... ...1 and .000... ...1 with a hole in the middle.Heathrow said:I suppose the simplest way would be to stop trying to quantify 0 as an integer, that means parity wouldn't try to describe it at all. Unless of course there's some reason an unquantifiable concept absolutely has to be counted among the natural numbers.Scipio1770 said:please enlighten us then.