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

[righthead]

Something as simple as high school physics doesn't work without "0".

"Nothing can exist without the concept and value of nothing"
~My friend upon seeing your topic.

how does nothing exist without its concept?

 

[righthead]

You can do simple math without using zero. You can also do math without using the number 9, if you're careful about how you do it or you use base 8 numbering.

if you use base 8 numbering nine looks like 10 but you can do it without the digit

 

[crystalsnow]

In my view, zero is not a number because a number represents a value or lack thereof (positive or negative)

Wait did you just accidentally disprove you theory of why Zero isn't a number? Because Zero indicates a lack of value or, in other words, nothing. So by your definition zero is a number. And before you say it, no, a negative number does not represent a lack of value. A negative number represents a value in the opposite direction. If you went -5 miles East you would be going 5 miles in the opposite direction of East. That still means that you are traveling a value.

Overall, though this is a very interesting discussion. Its nice to know that people like to challenge preconceived concepts to better understand the world around us. I applaud you for your work.

Nono, I said that negative IS a direction, I did the EXACT same analogy as you except I said North not East.

 

[righthead]

<--- 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.

Pie is way better. Cake is a bland unenjoyably SOCIALIST desert.
Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.


And before you respond with some liberal cake loving garbage, look at the facts. Combine fruit and pie, delicious. Combine fruit and cake and well...you get the idea.

Pie is the last refuge of commie filth!
It is the stinking grasp of the red menace reaching into our homes to steal and corrupt our children.

Pie is better because you can combine it with fruit? Pff you can do the same with cake AND it tastes better. But that's irrelevant you can combine cake with ICE CREAM ICE CREAM!
Pie, really? This soul is already lost to evil.

Looks like we got another liberal radical here.
Don't try to take one thing and call it something else, cake is socialist and always will be. Pie is the desert of freedom. It's anything you could possibly like simply housed in a crust, maybe even without crust, however you want it.
Pot pies, not my personal cup of tea but it just proves my point, pies can have anything you love even if it's meat.

Cake? It needs to be cake. You can "add" things but it still has to be a certain way. Can you have meat if that's what you want? No of course not, your only allowed sweet things. Have diabetes? Too bad, the liberal socialist regime doesn't even want you to live if you have such a condition.


EDIT: BTW nice try bending the truth in typical socialist fashion. You can put ice cream on pie and its WAY BETTER.
But will the liberals let you have this information? Of course not. They want to hide it, they don't want you to ask questions about desert.

I'm confused as to how as with cake being consigned to doing a thing the same way any time you do it makes you a liberal. seems to me that's the way conservatives like things. That and commies.

because confining what a thing can be is limiting freedom, and liberals hate freedom but they also love to fool you into thinking they want freedom (hence why they choose to call themselves liberals even though liberal means free and clearly they hate freedom)
And there you go, blaming it on the conservatives. You liberals will blame everything on conservatives. Go eat your socialist, pie hating cake liberal.

I suppose you have a point, after all, not being willing to force everyone to be free is clearly a sign of hating freedom. and eating cake liberals would be cannibalism, I think.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Read before voting...

Ha ha, no.

I do not care enough to read all that.

But to be fair, I didn't vote, either.

 

[crystalsnow]

Snip

Thank you kind friend. Really, this is pretty much the perfect example of someone who cannot ever think outside of the box. In fact, they don't even know the box exists. You wanna debate Pluto? Go on. Have a blast. I don't care, Pluto is irrelevant to this thread and you contributed absolutely nothing to the argument here. People don't agree with me (mostly). I'm fine with that. I respect that, because they provide some counter food for thought. All you have done is... well, nothing frankly because you missed the point of the thread like a champ.

However, since you believe Pluto is a much more interesting topic, I will kindly provide a link to a better place of discussions for your interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto_%28Disney%29

Have fun, thanks for stopping by.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Does the set of all groups containing nothing infact contain itself? Now THAT'S a paradox...

that's not a paradox, because there is no group containing nothing. A group by definition must have an identity element. However if you're talking about the set of all sets containing nothing, it's still not because the set containing nothing is not nothing.

Fair point, Righthead - my apologies, it's been a little while since I did set theory (damn you, world of diff calc!), and that shit is a terminological minefield when you're out of practice... I was shooting for Russell's paradox - Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves in fact contain itself?

 

[righthead]

you're right about the terminological minefield, I got lost in the terminology and missed that it was in fact a paradox

 

[cookyt]

Does the set of all groups containing nothing infact contain itself? Now THAT'S a paradox...

that's not a paradox, because there is no group containing nothing. A group by definition must have an identity element. However if you're talking about the set of all sets containing nothing, it's still not because the set containing nothing is not nothing.

how about this:

Should a list of lists which do not contain refrences to themselves contain itself?

if it does it's inaccurate, if it doesn't it's incomplete. Is the answer to this yes or no question no?

To tell you the truth, I don't know. I came across it in a book of paradoxes. It was a bit better developed, but that's the basic gist of it.

EDIT: Now I remember, I think it was Russell's Paradox.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Perhaps this means that Russell's paradox is the Hitler of internet maths discussions - once someone brings it up, it's time to close the discussion off...

 

[Twilight_guy]

This is zero -> {}
This is one -> {{}}
This is two -> {{},{{}}}
This is three -> {{},{{}}},{{{}}}}
And so on.
Clearly even though zero isn't a thing it still exists as a representation of nothing. Think of it as a pointer that goes nowhere. The pointer exists even if what it goes to does not.

 

[righthead]

This is zero -> {}
This is one -> {{}}
This is two -> {{},{{}}}
This is three -> {{},{{}}},{{{}}}}
And so on.
Clearly even though zero isn't a thing it still exists as a representation of nothing. Think of it as a pointer that goes nowhere. The pointer exists even if what it goes to does not.

I've seen that definition before, and I think you're missing some parts... but I can't be sure because I've only seen it once. Could you explain how addition works in there?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

you're right about the terminological minefield, I got lost in the terminology and missed that it was in fact a paradox

YES!! I'm now totally claiming I meant that the first time - because the group containing nothing does not exist, since it doesn't contain an identity element, it must be nothing, and as such lie within itself! But if it lies within itself, it is no longer "the group containing nothing", and must no longer lie within itself. But if that were true...

Totally planned that out, I did.

This is zero -> {}
This is one -> {{}}
This is two -> {{},{{}}}
This is three -> {{},{{}}},{{{}}}}
And so on.
Clearly even though zero isn't a thing it still exists as a representation of nothing. Think of it as a pointer that goes nowhere. The pointer exists even if what it goes to does not.

I've seen that definition before, and I think you're missing some parts... but I can't be sure because I've only seen it once. Could you explain how addition works in there?

I'm right there with you, I want to say it's a representation of constructing the reals and arithmetic from set theory, but google can't find it for me and my brain hurts from recovering my paradox status...

 

[KarumaK]

SNIP*
Looks like we got another liberal radical here.
Don't try to take one thing and call it something else, cake is socialist and always will be. Pie is the desert of freedom. It's anything you could possibly like simply housed in a crust, maybe even without crust, however you want it.
Pot pies, not my personal cup of tea but it just proves my point, pies can have anything you love even if it's meat.

Cake? It needs to be cake. You can "add" things but it still has to be a certain way. Can you have meat if that's what you want? No of course not, your only allowed sweet things. Have diabetes? Too bad, the liberal socialist regime doesn't even want you to live if you have such a condition.


EDIT: BTW nice try bending the truth in typical socialist fashion. You can put ice cream on pie and its WAY BETTER.
But will the liberals let you have this information? Of course not. They want to hide it, they don't want you to ask questions about desert.

Pie a dessert of freedom? LIES HORRIBLE LIES! Pie is the last crushing blow of the tyrant, it is the iron lock on the cage! You speak of these so called "Pot Pies" in the typical commie manner lying through your teeth. It's just stew in a baked bowl, not really a pie at all but, you've no problem leaving that crucial detail out eh red? Pot pies are pies in the same way that both water and air hold oxygen; one will keep you alive another day if you breathe it and the other will drag you to hell.

Cake is a glorious design, if shows only your ignorance that you deny the existence of the meatcake. And cake even comes sugar-free so that even the diabetic can enjoy the glory of most holy treat.

Filth red menace spreading the dark whispers of hate into the ears of the innocent, ice cream on pie... pff. We know the truth, we know that pie kills ice cream on contact leaving it corrupted and unenjoyable.

 

[righthead]

SNIP*
Looks like we got another liberal radical here.
Don't try to take one thing and call it something else, cake is socialist and always will be. Pie is the desert of freedom. It's anything you could possibly like simply housed in a crust, maybe even without crust, however you want it.
Pot pies, not my personal cup of tea but it just proves my point, pies can have anything you love even if it's meat.

Cake? It needs to be cake. You can "add" things but it still has to be a certain way. Can you have meat if that's what you want? No of course not, your only allowed sweet things. Have diabetes? Too bad, the liberal socialist regime doesn't even want you to live if you have such a condition.


EDIT: BTW nice try bending the truth in typical socialist fashion. You can put ice cream on pie and its WAY BETTER.
But will the liberals let you have this information? Of course not. They want to hide it, they don't want you to ask questions about desert.

Pie a dessert of freedom? LIES HORRIBLE LIES! Pie is the last crushing blow of the tyrant, it is the iron lock on the cage! You speak of these so called "Pot Pies" in the typical commie manner lying through your teeth. It's just stew in a baked bowl, not really a pie at all but, you've no problem leaving that crucial detail out eh red? Pot pies are pies in the same way that both water and air hold oxygen; one will keep you alive another day if you breathe it and the other will drag you to hell.

Cake is a glorious design, if shows only your ignorance that you deny the existence of the meatcake. And cake even comes sugar-free so that even the diabetic can enjoy the glory of most holy treat.

Filth red menace spreading the dark whispers of hate into the ears of the innocent, ice cream on pie... pff. We know the truth, we know that pie kills ice cream on contact leaving it corrupted and unenjoyable.

It should be recognized that no form of desert is absolutely perfect. Some are better and sometimes it can be difficult to tell which is best, often times the most fervent believers are not evil or tyrannical but simply misled. What's most important is we all eat bacon.

 

[Coldie]

Alright, troll or not, I'll bite.

you can do math without using 0. I belive its not a number, but its a space holder. its there for other numbers to be put. its an empty shell ((hehehe, pun)) waiting to be filled.

Exactly how many elephants do you have in your left hand right now?

And there is no math without zero. You can't do math without arithmetics, right? Take away arithmetics and it all crumbles away into oblivion, much like the Colossus. Arithmetics, in turn, rests on two pillars - Addition and Multiplication.

Addition requires an Identity Element, zero, defined as x + 0 = x;
Multiplication requires a Zero Element, zero, defined as x * 0 = 0;

Zero is not always a natural number, but it is always a number. Zero is the cornerstone of mathematics and it's quite a useful number in everyday life, as well. Please stop using the same arguments over and over.

 

[righthead]

you're right about the terminological minefield, I got lost in the terminology and missed that it was in fact a paradox

YES!! I'm now totally claiming I meant that the first time - because the group containing nothing does not exist, since it doesn't contain an identity element, it must be nothing, and as such lie within itself! But if it lies within itself, it is no longer "the group containing nothing", and must no longer lie within itself. But if that were true...

Totally planned that out, I did.

This is zero -> {}
This is one -> {{}}
This is two -> {{},{{}}}
This is three -> {{},{{}}},{{{}}}}
And so on.
Clearly even though zero isn't a thing it still exists as a representation of nothing. Think of it as a pointer that goes nowhere. The pointer exists even if what it goes to does not.

I've seen that definition before, and I think you're missing some parts... but I can't be sure because I've only seen it once. Could you explain how addition works in there?

I'm right there with you, I want to say it's a representation of constructing the reals and arithmetic from set theory, but google can't find it for me and my brain hurts from recovering my paradox status...

Yeah, I encountered it in my set theory class.