is 0 even or odd?

[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?

 

[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.