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

[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.

 

[crystalsnow]

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

The root of the arguement is that 0 exists merely as a symbolic placeholder. Its the terminology that goes to the heart of what was originally said.

Someone made reference to the fact that 1 sun is larger than 5 earths, that the numbers 1 and 5 are only made meaningful in any semantic reference when they are assigned value. While I would disagree that numbers are strictly only meaningful when assigned value, this argument strengthens my position that 0 is not a number, as its value is permanently defined as the absence of value.

It is merely a placeholder.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

 

[Dana22]

Oh, and no, i dont think its a number.
You cant show its value because it has no value. it has no mass, matter, weight or form.

Yes it has a value, it represents number of elements in an empty set.

 

[righthead]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Oh, for the love of...

You do have to have 0 of EVERYTHING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF. It is implied by not having any other number of that thing. The fact that you would not always say it is irrelevant. It is easy to construct scenarios where 'nothing' needs a numerical value to be explicitly stated, and you repeatedly ignore this.

I would argue that you can't show 1 without a context, nor 2, nor 3. The numerical count is added by us in our heads - all numbers cannot be kissed, or touched, or felt. When was the last time you kissed 5? Not 5 girls, meaning that you have counted 5 kisses, but you kissed the number 5? Does this mean 5 is not a number?

You repeatedly fall back to the position of "I don't have 0, I have none" despite also repeatedly stating that 0 is a signifier for nothing. These two ideas contradict each other. If zero is not a number, then you can't keep using its synonym 'none' to answer numerical questions. And context is not some sort of 'unnatural forced thing' that we're applying to examples, it's part of the way your brain processes the world around it and filters out what isn't worth communicating aloud. As such, If I held out my hand, and said "how many objects in my hand?", and you saw no objects, you would say 0, or none, or "your hand is empty". This is an important thing to be able to do, and it seems that your definition would require you to say "I'm unsure what I'm supposed to look for as I cannot understand the meaning for the word 'object' without a concrete example".

 

[kouriichi]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

But thats what im saying.
0 is a representation as you said. Its not a number.
Its filler. You could say nothing insted of 0 and it would mean the same thing.
Its there for ease of use. a fork is a tool, but you cant open a door with it. ((i tryed and lets just say im out 75 bucks for a new door.))

Its easyer then saying/writing/typing nothing.
Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

 

[righthead]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

But thats what im saying.
0 is a representation as you said. Its not a number.
Its filler. You could say nothing insted of 0 and it would mean the same thing.
Its there for ease of use. a fork is a tool, but you cant open a door with it. ((i tryed and lets just say im out 75 bucks for a new door.))

Its easyer then saying/writing/typing nothing.
Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

except if I was dividing by nothing instead of zero I'd have to stop at (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) because if I divide both sides of the equation by nothing I'd still have (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

I'm not arguing it's value. I'm providing a counterargument to your claim that it's not required.

 

[kouriichi]

I would argue that you can't show 1 without a context, nor 2, nor 3. The numerical count is added by us in our heads - all numbers cannot be kissed, or touched, or felt. When was the last time you kissed 5? Not 5 girls, meaning that you have counted 5 kisses, but you kissed the number 5? Does this mean 5 is not a number?

thats the thing though. 5 is a number.
You cant kiss 0 girls.
You can kiss 5 girls ((and get called a he-b*tch)).

You cannot show the value of 0, because its value is nothing. It cant be attached to an object without the object not existing to be attached to.

So even if you tryed to kiss 0 girls, they wouldent exist, because the value of 0 is nothing. So you wouldent have tryed to kiss 0 girls, you would have tryed to kiss 5 non existant girls.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

But thats what im saying.
0 is a representation as you said. Its not a number.
Its filler. You could say nothing insted of 0 and it would mean the same thing.
Its there for ease of use. a fork is a tool, but you cant open a door with it. ((i tryed and lets just say im out 75 bucks for a new door.))

Its easyer then saying/writing/typing nothing.
Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

except if I was dividing by nothing instead of zero I'd have to stop at (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) because if I divide both sides of the equation by nothing I'd still have (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

No, youd just have nothng. You would have ended the problem.
That would be the end. Nothing left. Problem solved.

if you shot 5 kitten stompers, there would be no more stomped kittens. there wouldent be 0 kitten stompers, there would be 5 kitten stomper bodys.

 

[theSovietConnection]

Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

But it still has value, as the lack of value, in mathmatics, is still a value.


I've been following this thread all night, sad as it is, it's more interesting then anything else to do around my house.

 

[Coldie]

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

I'm sorry, "I've never had any elephants" is a statement that can be interpreted as "you have zero elephants". Also, you should get an elephant, they are awesome. How can you survive with zero elephants in your house?

Your next argument can be applied to any other number. Like this:

You don't require 7. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool. You can't show/touch/feel/see or kiss 7.

Can math survive without "7"? Sure, just do everything in base 6. Without number 7? Not really, it'll always be around in some form. And 7 is pretty "meh" as far as numbers go. Zero is more "powerful" than 7 can even imagine.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

Yes, 0 is, technically, nothing. And nothing is 0. You have nothing in your hand. If you add context to that, you can be said to have zero hedgehogs in your hand. You don't have "your left hand" in your left hand, you have "nothing" in your left hand. Without context, this is meaningless semantics.

And let me show you my collection of funny cat pictures, count them:

 

[righthead]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

But thats what im saying.
0 is a representation as you said. Its not a number.
Its filler. You could say nothing insted of 0 and it would mean the same thing.
Its there for ease of use. a fork is a tool, but you cant open a door with it. ((i tryed and lets just say im out 75 bucks for a new door.))

Its easyer then saying/writing/typing nothing.
Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

except if I was dividing by nothing instead of zero I'd have to stop at (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) because if I divide both sides of the equation by nothing I'd still have (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

No, youd just have nothng. You would have ended the problem.
That would be the end. Nothing left. Problem solved.

if you shot 5 kitten stompers, there would be no more stomped kittens. there wouldent be 0 kitten stompers, there would be 5 kitten stomper bodys.

so you admit that dividing by nothing provides a different result than dividing by zero.

 

[KarumaK]

SNIP*
More lies from the wolf.
I told you to stop taking one thing and calling it another. I am not a commie, communism is the belief that all deserts and people need to follow a strict pattern to be acceptable. This is your belief, not mine. Liberals like you say pie is not good with ice cream, when you say that you are taking away my freedom of belief in typical liberal fashion. Maybe not everyone likes ice cream on pie, I respect that, but I believe we need more than ice cream. For that matter, i believe we need more than desert. I believe we need freedom, something you liberals know nothing about. I believe we need a choice in our desert, and pie is the only desert that allows this freedom. There is no such thing as a meat cake or a sugar free cake, these are facts. Your just making things up to brainwash people and I find it revolting.

When Hitler first wanted to seize control, his first act was endorsing cake. It was perfect in his sick mind, everyone eating cake so people unable to tolerate the high level of sugar would be forced to die. The problem was too many rebels disliked this idea so they ate pie, and the nazis tried to put a stop to this. They started with the pie eaters, then the conservative Christians, by the end nobody was left to stop them except the Americans.

I just read a history book, and I'll be honest, it scared the living shit out of me. Please read one, it has so much information and now I see it happening all over again. If we don't do something to stop these cake pushing fascists, nobody will be left to stop them this time.

Hah the only wolf here is you, here to pray on our righteous flock. You deny your commie origin espousing freedom while condemning all deserts not pie. You call me a liberal then you say I do not want freedom? Choose little commie if freedom is not what I want how can I be liberal? If I consider ice cream to improve cake how can I deny choice in our sweet after-meal? And most importantly how DARE you deny the existence of cake variety?! No we'll not fall for you devil's tongue today you monster you. You will not claim pie to be the domain of freedom so long as cake and its delicious allies stand together. Cookie is with us, donut is with us, ice cream is with us, candy is with us! We stand an alliance of freedom against that most heinous of tyrants!

You fool so deep into your pie propaganda that you cannot see the facts so easily visible to anyone. Hitler devoured only pie, every second of every day, it is this of course that led to his great evil. He was but a man how could he withstand the corrupting influence of the dark pastry.

And in the last move left you claim that your history book delivered you this truth? This pie endorsed madness, I can't help but wonder at how deep this has gotten. Fascism you claim... I know fascism my friend and it is a 3 letter word for EVIL.

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.

Bacon is a glorious treat I'll accept, and far be it from one so humble as me to claim cake is perfect, but to acknowledge pie as an equal?! Such an affront to our delicious honor cannot be sustained with no good faith to rely on.

 

[Zakarath]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

I would say that the way you define what constitutes a number is flawed. You seem to define "number" as a value that describes a concrete, physical quantity. And if this definition was correct, then no, zero would not be a number.

However what a "number" is is a "An abstract entity used to describe quantity."-wiktionary (yes I use wiktionary)
Note that that definition has zero (har har har) mentions of concrete existence or physicality. Numbers serve more purpose than counting how many apples you own or how many stars are in the sky, and many of their applications do not have or need physical references. And in many of these applications zero serves a critical role.

 

[kouriichi]

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.

you just used the same arguement as 3 other people and are telling me not to XD
Ive never had any elephants. I dont have 0 elephants, because ive never had any elephants to begin with.

And your argument is you HAVE TO HAVE 0.
You dont require 0. You use it. Its a tool. A non-existant in reality tool.
you cant show/touch/feel/see or kiss 0.
Your trying to say, 0 is a number because everything requires it in someway.

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

Hold up your and. is it 0 items in your hand, or just your hand? Your forcing 0 to be the subject. Your using something un-naturally for purposes to further your side of the argument.

Show me 0 objects. Can you show nothing? No, because nothing doesnt exist. 0 has no value. if 0 has no value, it cant be use to add or subtract without getting the same number.

your trying to same its a number because its aquired. Im trying to say its not, because its not required. Its not needed. its doesnt need to exist.

How about this argument. That zero is necessary because you need something that you can't divide by.

Consider:

Let a=1 and b=1 then
a=b
a^2=ab
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1
2=1


the argument falls apart because you divide by (a-b) which is zero (not nothing or the division would not have had a representation.)

EDIT: I just divided by zero. OH SHI-

But thats what im saying.
0 is a representation as you said. Its not a number.
Its filler. You could say nothing insted of 0 and it would mean the same thing.
Its there for ease of use. a fork is a tool, but you cant open a door with it. ((i tryed and lets just say im out 75 bucks for a new door.))

Its easyer then saying/writing/typing nothing.
Its not a number because it has no value. its an empty spot. for usefulness, on a scale of 1-10, its 0. not on the list. XD

except if I was dividing by nothing instead of zero I'd have to stop at (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) because if I divide both sides of the equation by nothing I'd still have (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

No, youd just have nothng. You would have ended the problem.
That would be the end. Nothing left. Problem solved.

if you shot 5 kitten stompers, there would be no more stomped kittens. there wouldent be 0 kitten stompers, there would be 5 kitten stomper bodys.

so you admit that dividing by nothing provides a different result than dividing by zero.

My argument is that you cant divide by 0, because its not a number to divide by.
youd be divide by nothing.

you have $100. Divide nothing from it. Nothing would happen.

NOOOOOOTHING!!

 

[Funkysandwich]

Im trying to say 0 is nothing. And nothing is not 0. I have nothing in my hand. Not 0.

How can you say "you can't hold 0 in your hand."?

You can't hold 1 in your hand. Does that mean it's not a number? Things don't just disappear because they don't have physical form. Just because you can't grasp a concept doesn't mean it ceases to exist. I could say that your post has 0 apostrophes, and I'd be right because it doesn't. I haven't killed grammar by saying that. That's a numerical representation. Therefore 0 is a number.

 

[Jewrean]

I am a Mathematics teacher if that counts for anything (no pun intended). Yes zero is a number as well as a digit. Many of you are merely arguing over zero from the perspective of single numbers not considering its applications such as limits, indicies, number systems with different base values, and so on.

Right at the start of this Wikipedia (gah! Damn you Wikipedia!) it states that zero is both a digit and a number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

And I swear to god, if someone 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 will set a puppy on fire with my mind.

Teehee! Take this!:
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63315.html

I would say that the way you define what constitutes a number is flawed. You seem to define "number" as a value that describes a concrete, physical quantity. And if this definition was correct, then no, zero would not be a number.

However what a "number" is is a "An abstract entity used to describe quantity."-wiktionary (yes I use wiktionary)
Note that that definition has zero (har har har) mentions of concrete existence or physicality. Numbers serve more purpose than counting how many apples you own or how many stars are in the sky, and many of their applications do not have or need physical references.

What he said.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

I would argue that you can't show 1 without a context, nor 2, nor 3. The numerical count is added by us in our heads - all numbers cannot be kissed, or touched, or felt. When was the last time you kissed 5? Not 5 girls, meaning that you have counted 5 kisses, but you kissed the number 5? Does this mean 5 is not a number?

thats the thing though. 5 is a number.
You cant kiss 0 girls.
You can kiss 5 girls ((and get called a he-b*tch)).

You cannot show the value of 0, because its value is nothing. It cant be attached to an object without the object not existing to be attached to.

So even if you tryed to kiss 0 girls, they wouldent exist, because the value of 0 is nothing. So you wouldent have tryed to kiss 0 girls, you would have tryed to kiss 5 non existant girls.

So you're saying that "5 girls" is the thing you kiss, not 5x girl? That's wildly inaccurate, there is nothing five-ish about any of the girls...

What if you wanted to tell your best friend about your troubles with girls? How could you talk to him about having never kissed a girl, if there was no way to communicate that you had never kissed a girl? Just because you haven't kissed one doesn't make it a 'blank spot' in existence for you. You can know and comprehend the concept of it without having concrete evidence. You have had 0 kisses, not a blank space, because you KNOW that there is a thing that you could count if you'd had any. And thanks to the concept of 0, or none, or nothing, you can tell your friend your problem and he will understand it.