is 0 even or odd?

[artanis_neravar]

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]

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.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Of course 0 is even.
Never went to math class?

 

[Sinspiration]

Neither.... zero is not a number, but a lack there of.

Agreed

 

[artanis_neravar]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

No, the guy you quoted is right, 10*.9999=9.999, 9.999-.9999=8.999 and 9*.999=8.999, which does not equal 9, you can not use your argument in a proof to say that 8.999 is close enough to 9

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Neither, you can't divide 0 by 2 or any other number.
Do I win?

....
0/2
... right

And it works the other way to!

Spoiler: 2/0...

OT: Zero is a mathmatical nightmare trying to explain what it is. Many civilizations didn't even have a concept OF zero in their number systems. It is simply, nothingness. Not positive, negative, odd, even, a fraction or and intiger. It just is nothing.

 

[drummond13]

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.

Of course it isn't. But in this case it's right. Zero is even.

 

[Coldie]

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).

Which is why philosophy can actually have purely abstract notions in it. Math's rules are limited by reality...

Math does not have immutable laws. Math literally defines whatever laws it damn wants. Real world, not so much. When I create a mathematical system, I decide whether or not multiplication is possible, if it is, how does it work, how (if at all) it can be reversed, or how many divisors will zero have [that is, a*b = 0, where a != 0 and b != 0]. I define the aleph and the omega, not the "real world". Math can do it. Philosophy and Physics cannot do it.

Real world has no benefit from knowing that there are exactly as many numbers p/q (where p,q are both positive integers numbers) as there are positive integers or that there are exactly as many numbers between (0, 1) as there are Real numbers, but in math world it amounts to at least 3 nerdgasms each month. Euler's Identity (as seen in my avatar) pulls that many per hour.

Philosophy is a collection of abstract concepts that are grounded in and applied to reality. Math has no such constraints, you define them yourself. When other disciplines use maths, they do it on their own terms, use their own axioms and rules to construct the mathematical model.

Be as it may, the end doth remain: do not look for a connection that does not exist, because you might believe that you've found it.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Neither, you can't divide 0 by 2 or any other number.
Do I win?

....
0/2
... right

And it works the other way to!

Spoiler: 2/0...

OT: Zero is a mathmatical nightmare trying to explain what it is. Many civilizations didn't even have a concept OF zero in their number systems. It is simply, nothingness. Not positive, negative, odd, even, a fraction or and intiger. It just is nothing.

2/0 is infinity, although not sure why you brought it up?

 

[iphonerose]

Neither, you can't divide 0 by 2 or any other number.
Do I win?

you can divide by 2! 0/2=0

ot: from wiki:

0 is evenly divisible by 2, 0 is surrounded on both sides by odd integers, 0 is the sum of an integer with itself, and 0 objects can be split into two equal groups. Zero fits into the rules for sums and products of even numbers, such as even − even = even, so any alternate definition of "even number" would still need to include zero. Within the even numbers, zero plays a central role: it is the identity element of the group of even integers, and it is the starting case from which other even natural numbers are recursively generated. Every integer divides 0, including each power of 2; in this sense, 0 is the "most even" number of all.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.....

Infinity is even in that case, because 2*infinity=infinity

 

[drummond13]

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.

No, the guy you quoted is right, 10*.9999=9.999, 9.999-.9999=8.999 and 9*.999=8.999, which does not equal 9, you can not use your argument in a proof to say that 8.999 is close enough to 9

(sigh) It's not "close enough" to 9. It is exactly equal to 9.

Look, I know this is kind of a mind@#$% of a concept. I get that. But this is a mathematical fact. This isn't theoretical. There can be no debate about this, any more than someone can debate what the value of pi is.

This has already been proven several times over in this thread, and there are other proofs out there. Look them up. Learn something.

 

[Hagi]

No, the guy you quoted is right, 10*.9999=9.999, 9.999-.9999=8.999 and 9*.999=8.999, which does not equal 9, you can not use your argument in a proof to say that 8.999 is close enough to 9

Wait so if (9.999... - 0.999... = 8.999....) then what is (9.999... - 1)?

It can't be 8.999... because that would mean 0.999... was equal to 1 anyway, so it must be something else? What is it then?

 

[artanis_neravar]

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.

No, the guy you quoted is right, 10*.9999=9.999, 9.999-.9999=8.999 and 9*.999=8.999, which does not equal 9, you can not use your argument in a proof to say that 8.999 is close enough to 9

(sigh) It's not "close enough" to 9. It is exactly equal to 9.

Look, I know this is kind of a mind@#$% of a concept. I get that. But this is a mathematical fact. This isn't theoretical. There can be no debate about this, any more than someone can debate what the value of pi is.

This has already been proven several times over in this thread, and there are other proofs out there. Look them up. Learn something.

No it is not a mathematical fact, it is a fallacy pure and simple

 

[Hagi]

Infinity is even in that case, because 2*infinity=infinity

Infinity is not an element of Z. As such infinity can not be even. 0 is an element of Z. As such 0 can be even. And as 0*2=0 it actually is even.