# Poll: Is zero a number? (Read before voting)

#### cookyt

##### New member
LeonLethality said:
Nukeforyou said:
LeonLethality said:
The only time you can have zero of something is in a vacuum (space). And even then, you technically would call it "a vacuum", implying that there is "one" vacuum.
I know I'm focusing on the wrong part of your argument but, empty space isn't empty. It has particles and anti-particles that are constantly colliding and destroying each other.

I wish I could find my book to get a more accurate quote but that's what i remember reading.
*looks at my one and only previous post in this thread (the very first reply)*

I feel I have been misquoted.

They're called virtual particles. A particle - anti-particle pair that is spontaneously created out of the free (vacuum) energy in space, and then promptly destroyed. They're the reason black holes can decay (proven by Stephen Hawking).

If I remember correctly, theoretically do not occur in a "true" vacuum (a vacuum where literally nothing - not even energy - is present). Though I'm not entirely sure about that last part.

#### Hayday

##### New member
Zero is the digit used to account for the lack of a number.

#### kouriichi

##### New member
cookyt said:
kouriichi said:
cookyt said:
kouriichi said:
Sauvastika said:
kouriichi said:
you would never have givin someone 0 \$100 bills. Have you ever? Will you ever? Your using an completely illogical scenario for your arguement. This scenario would never happen. If it did, i wouldent associate "0" with what you gave me. i would associate "Nothing" with that you gave me.
You're arguing about linguistic convention. We would not say, "I gave you 1 \$20 bill and 0 \$100 bills," because it generally goes against linguistic convention. We do not feel the need to use '0' to signify the absence of quantity; we have other more common expressions. However, it would still be a perfectly valid statement, as '1' \$20 bill was given and '0' \$100 bills were given. It'd just be a little weird.

Let's put this another way. Pretend for a second that the word 'no' replaced 'zero' as part of our numerical system. The symbol '0' is no longer pronounced "ze-ro", but simply "no." Suddenly, everything sounds a little more like regular English. "I gave you 'one' \$20 bill and 'no' \$100 bills." or "I gave you 'one' \$20 bill and 'no' kittens." If I were to replace to words 'one' and 'no' with their respective numerical symbols, we'd come get original expressions again: "I gave you 1 \$20 bill and 0 \$100 bills."

Simply put, we could easily have a language where 'zero' has practical value. There's nothing contradictory/wrong about it. It's just that English didn't evolve that way.

Because 0 has no value, you cant stick it to something, because that something becomes nothing.

The value of 0 is nothing. Thus 0 is nothing. Which kinda means you cannot logically stick it to something. 0 people would never exist. it would just be 0.

Look at it this way. If a-b=c why are you trying to say a-b=a-b. Doggydoor - person = doggydoor. Not doggydoor - person.
Now onto the second point. Logically, it would not be wrong for me to say, "I gave you 1 \$20 bill and 0 \$100 dollar bills." It would not be wrong for me to say, "I gave you 1 \$20 bill, 0 kittens, and 0 puppies." '0' is a mathematical sign that symbolizes the lack of quantity, while all the other real numbers are merely symbols for various other quantities. Those two sentences are logically valid. What's happening is that we're just acknowledging something did not happen.

'a-b=a-b' is a true statement. It may be a trivial statement, but it is true nonetheless. Conventionally, we say 'a-b=a', but there is nothing logically invalid with 'a-b=a-b'.
What im trying to say is, its pointless.

0=nothing correct? We agree on that.

That imply there was nothing to begin with. But there is always something to begin with. You never begin with 0, and you can never end with 0.

You start off with \$100, you get mugged. What do you have left? Your life, your hand, and the wallet you had the \$100 in.

You cant have nothing. "Nothing" doesnt exist in our universe. So if 0=nothing, you cant have 0. Its that simple. Nothing is the lack of something. You cant have 0. you can have nothing, but not 0.

0 is a place holder. its there so fill in where there is not a number.
But you completely ignore the fact that you now have zero \$100 bills. Sure you can have all that other stuff, but in your equation, that's what's being changed, so it's trivial to look atit from that perspective as you had that to begin with.
But i dont have 0 \$100 bills. I have nothing. 0 and nothing are different. If i havent had a \$100 bill to begin with, i cant have nothing. But even if i did, you cant have 0 somethings. Because 0 somethings doesnt exist.

Show me 0 kittens playing on my window. you cant, because in this realm of reality, 0 cannot be. Theres always something there. A box cant have 0 objects inside. It would still have its inner lineing. And if you ignored that, there would still be air, bugs, atoms, or something we cant see.

So 0 cannot exist because that would mean that nothing exists. And nothing cant exist. Why? Because its nothing.
Reading over your last few posts, you have repeatedly stated that zero both equals and does not equal nothing, so, for the sake of argument, lets refrain from using any word denoting a null value or the absense of something other than zero.

You can flavor your zero two ways for the most part. You have your ordinary, garden variety concrete zero wich can denote the absense of the physical unit you attach to it, but cannot be taken out of context be removing its corresponding unit. In this case zero cats does not equal zero \$100 bills; they are mutually exclusive units (unless it was the cats that ran off with your wallet, but then you have bigger problems).

You can also have the abstract zero which represents nothing at all. Of course this version of the zero can only be applied in the proper context of a numerical system, and not, as you are using it, in a physical system.

Using this definition, I can easily count zero cats onmy windowsill, even if there is one windowsill because the two do not necessarily have to relate to each other.

I cannot, however, say that by there being zero cats that thevery concept of the "cat" aquires the null value of zero because, in that situation, I am mixing the two seperate definitions of the value zero, and taking the question totally out of its context.
You cant count 0 cats. Because they dont exist to count.

You cannot count nothing. And the concpet of a car doesnt require 0. It requires 2. 2 cats.
2 cats, 1 male and 1 female. Where in there is 0? There isnt one. Where did cats come from. Previous ancestors. Where did they come from, theyer ancestors.

0 cannot exist. Theres never nothing in our universe. Show me nothing in our universe. Show me 0 somethings i can count. You cannot.

Its not a number, because it cannot be used as one.

What is a jet with no wings? its not a jet, its a hull. It cannot fly, thus, it cannot be used.

What is a number? something with value. Something that can be counted. 0 ((the jet with no wings)) is a hull. Its not a jet, because it has no wings. it cannot fly.

#### Kiju

##### New member
I think...you're over-analyzing it.

Zero is a number just as easily as 1 or 2.

It's in the exact middle of Numerical Order, between Negative and Positive. If it wasn't a number, you wouldn't be able to have 10, 100, 1000, etcetera. :\

All numbers represent something, zero is just another example of a number representing an amount of something.

#### Malcheior Sveth

##### New member
Zero is the number defined by the congruence class of all sets equivalent to the null set. So yes, it's a number.

##### New member
kouriichi said:
Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.
Who said a number has to have value?

#### Yoshemo

##### New member
crystalsnow said:
In reality, it is not a number, but a lack of one. But in equations, it is a number because it represents a value of nothing.

#### FluxCapacitor

##### New member
kouriichi said:
No, my logic is 0 cannot be a number because its value is nothing. it cannot be shown.
You can show half of an object. you cant show 1/4 an object. you cannot show 0 of an object.

if you try to show someone 0 kittens in 1 box. your showing them x units of air in 1 box.

0 cannot exist because its value CANNOT BE SHOWN. xD
you cannot lable something 0. and if you did, youd be labling 1 of something 0. meaning you would be lieing.

Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot be used. 0=nothing. thereby, by logic, 0 cannot exist. it cannot be used as a number. you can use any number as a value. 0 has a value of nothing. it has no value, meaning it cannot be used as a number, because there is always a value of something.

The only reason we use it is because its smarter then leaving a space at the end of everything, and easyer then puting nothing.

Which is best?

A:"2-2=2-2"
B:"2-2=0"
C:"2-2=nothing"
D:"2-2=chicken chicken taco"

Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.
A and B are equations, C qualifies as a word equation, D is just being facetious. There is no 'best' in terms of equally true statements in maths.

Saying "the only reason it exists is because it's smarter than leaving a space or writing nothing" sounds an awful lot like "the only reason it exists is to fill an important gap in number theory" to me. But once again, you're confusing 0 as a digit with 0 as a number or a value. Surprise surprise. If I say "2-2= ", I'm still treating the space as a zero, I'm just not realising it. In this case, the value of " " is zero. Zero is a value, logically extrapolated from any of your other number values. It was not invented, but discovered.

You know what, I'm done - I kinda suspect I'm just feeding a troll now to be honest. You win this round, General Ignorance, but (hopefully) not the war! *shakes fist*

#### kouriichi

##### New member
kouriichi said:
Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.
Who said a number has to have value?
Well every number has a value. so im pretty sure they do.

0 has a value. its value is nothing. Meaning that even by that, if it were a number it couldent be one. Because its value is nothing.

See the paradox? And you cant use paradoxi ((totally forgot the plural x3)) in a scientific way.

#### Fanta Grape

##### New member
A very well thought out and legitimate argument. I'll have to think about this one for a long time...

#### kouriichi

##### New member
FluxCapacitor said:
kouriichi said:
No, my logic is 0 cannot be a number because its value is nothing. it cannot be shown.
You can show half of an object. you cant show 1/4 an object. you cannot show 0 of an object.

if you try to show someone 0 kittens in 1 box. your showing them x units of air in 1 box.

0 cannot exist because its value CANNOT BE SHOWN. xD
you cannot lable something 0. and if you did, youd be labling 1 of something 0. meaning you would be lieing.

Nothing cannot exist. Nothing cannot be used. 0=nothing. thereby, by logic, 0 cannot exist. it cannot be used as a number. you can use any number as a value. 0 has a value of nothing. it has no value, meaning it cannot be used as a number, because there is always a value of something.

The only reason we use it is because its smarter then leaving a space at the end of everything, and easyer then puting nothing.

Which is best?

A:"2-2=2-2"
B:"2-2=0"
C:"2-2=nothing"
D:"2-2=chicken chicken taco"

Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.
A and B are equations, C qualifies as a word equation, D is just being facetious. There is no 'best' in terms of equally true statements in maths.

Saying "the only reason it exists is because it's smarter than leaving a space or writing nothing" sounds an awful lot like "the only reason it exists is to fill an important gap in number theory" to me. But once again, you're confusing 0 as a digit with 0 as a number or a value. Surprise surprise. If I say "2-2= ", I'm still treating the space as a zero, I'm just not realising it. In this case, the value of " " is zero. Zero is a value, logically extrapolated from any of your other number values. It was not invented, but discovered.

You know what, I'm done - I kinda suspect I'm just feeding a troll now to be honest. You win this round, General Ignorance, but (hopefully) not the war! *shakes fist*
The war is won by he who stands last!! *insert evil laugh*

Nah. im not a troll yet.
just several years of debate club.

XD and i mean that zero is there because its easyer. Why is there a clip for a gun? Because its faster, easyer, and smart then all other methods developed.
I belive thats what 0 is. Its a clip in the gun of mathmatics. Without the clip, loading the gun would take to long and be to difficualt for the average child your trying to teach.

#### KarumaK

##### New member
<--- Uses the defense of [Begin idiot voice]"Well zero is on the number line, it has to be a number then."[End idiot voice]

I swear the things people come up with... why doesn't anyone focus on better things, like cake. The world needs more great cake philosophers.

#### Hakazaba

##### New member
crystalsnow said:
But I'd like you to take a step back and examine it further. I claim that zero is more of a concept than a number. It is a placeholder to theorize the space between positive and negative.
I claim that a number is a concept.

It is a way to understand our world, like calling an apple an apple, its just the name we apply to something in order to easier understand and communicate the idea of an apple.

Numbers are a unit of measurement, zero is just a much a unit of measurement as one as they both convey the idea of a unit of measurement.

##### New member
kouriichi said:
kouriichi said:
Zero is not a number, because its value is nothing. its there for ease of use.
Who said a number has to have value?
Well every number has a value. so im pretty sure they do.

0 has a value. its value is nothing. Meaning that even by that, if it were a number it couldent be one. Because its value is nothing.

See the paradox? And you cant use paradoxi ((totally forgot the plural x3)) in a scientific way.
you're using circular logic to disprove something you prove, which is ...impressive. I'ma quote this one again once I figure out how to untangle the thing.

#### emeraldrafael

##### New member
It depends. There are different classifications of numbers. Real, imaginary, whole, intergers, stuff like that. In some classes, zero isnt. in others, it is. However, I think its both. I think zero is the one thing in the universe man knows that can and cannot be something.

kouriichi said: