is 0 even or odd?

[flaming_ninja]

So what happens when you recur from the other side of the decimal point?

What does this have to do with the proof I posted? You don't recur from the other side of the decimal points when calculating:

10 * 0.9*recurring = 9.9*recurring.
9.9*recurring - 0.9*recurring = 9.

If you have a problem with that calculation then show it, there's no use in grabbing random things that have no bearing on the subject matter.

Just a way more interesting thing to talk about is ~1 > ~2?

 

[Hagi]

So, by the laws of math 0 is even, no matter what it represents (and even if it's useless to know)... everyone agree?

It doesn't really matter if anyone agrees. Zero, in mathematics, is even.

Zero, in Imagimatics, might not be. It can really be whatever you want, I prefer to think it's a pony.

 

[Hagi]

Just a way more interesting thing to talk about is ~1 > ~2?

What function does ~ have here? ~ is usually used as an equivalence relation, but the grammar isn't correct for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~#Mathematics

 

[Hagi]

Its a human construct designed to show the lack of a presence rather than an actual presence. It can't do anything. You don't ever have zero anything. You just dont have said thing.

You're talking about Ø, the empty set. Not about 0.

Ø is nothing. 0 is an element of the integers, rational numbers, real numbers, complex numbers etc.

 

[Floppertje]

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.


OT: I'm on team 0 = even. if you give 2 people nothing, they have the exact same amount without breaking anything in half.

 

[4li3n]

Its a human construct designed to show the lack of a presence rather than an actual presence. It can't do anything. You don't ever have zero anything. You just dont have said thing.

So is -1, as it represents someone taking something from you (or slowing down, loosing atoms/electrons etc)... they're still numbers because all numbers are abstract.

 

[Amphoteric]

0 is even. Why is this an issue again?

The Escapist really isn't very good at maths, last time people thought 0.99999... was not equal to 1.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

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.

I think you'll find that 0 is in fact in the set of integers and that 0 is also in the set of even numbers since that set is defined as the set of integers that have no remainder when divided by 2.

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.

It is true, the mathematical proof is right above you.

 

[Hagi]

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.


OT: I'm on team 0 = even. if you give 2 people nothing, they have the exact same amount without breaking anything in half.

Do you agree that 10 * 0.9*recurring equals 9.9*recurring?
Do you agree that 9.9*recurring - 0.9*recurring equals 9?
Do you agree that 10x - x = 9x?

That's the logic used. If that's flawed mathematics then, honestly, I don't see the flaw.

 

[4li3n]

So, by the laws of math 0 is even, no matter what it represents (and even if it's useless to know)... everyone agree?

It doesn't really matter if anyone agrees. Zero, in mathematics, is even.

You grammar skills are weak...

Ppl where starting to discuss other things, thus i asked if everyone was convinced by the evidence, because historically evidence and agreement don't always go together.

besides, I think there's a flaw in your third step. how is 9 * 0.9*recurring equal to 9?

Because the calculations on both sides of the "=" sign work...

 

[Coldie]

Its a human construct designed to show the lack of a presence rather than an actual presence. It can't do anything. You don't ever have zero anything. You just dont have said thing.

Is '1' a construct designed by the Crab People? Was '2' through '5' granted to us by the gods? Can e do anything? Can you have pi pies? When was the last time you had 7 + 28i apples in your hand?

Math has absolutely no basis in this so-called "reality", it consists entirely of pure abstract constructs. Man-made, perhaps, although some mathematicians will certainly disagree.

And in the Math Reality, 0 is an even integer number (also natural, whenever convenient). 0.(9) = 1. Division by zero is entirely impossible within the set of Real numbers. Math does not make compromises, it's always Absolute Truth [within the specified parameters of the problem, of course], whether you like it or not.

 

[4li3n]

Its a human construct designed to show the lack of a presence rather than an actual presence. It can't do anything. You don't ever have zero anything. You just dont have said thing.

So is -1, as it represents someone taking something from you (or slowing down, loosing atoms/electrons etc)... they're still numbers because all numbers are abstract.

A negative counts. If you have -1 apples, it means some stole on of your apples. ^^

And if you only had 1 apple you now have none... and if you had zero you could now owe someone an apple... but until you actually get an apple to give them you don't have an apple shaped hole somewhere.

 

[Denamic]

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.

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.

 

[almightygherkin]

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

 

[Hagi]

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....

 

[4li3n]

Math has absolutely no basis in this so-called "reality", it consists entirely of pure abstract constructs. Man-made, perhaps, although some mathematicians will certainly disagree.

They're abstract representations of real things... if they were just pure abstracts they'd belong to philosophy...

 

[Coldie]

They're abstract representations of real things... if they were just pure abstracts they'd belong to philosophy...

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.

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.

 

[Floppertje]

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

 

[Purple Shrimp]

Anything ending in 02468 so 0 is even.

1.2

That's not odd either.

lol nice edit I KNOW THE TRUTH

 

[Hagi]

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?