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

[Maze1125]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

 

[El Poncho]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

 

[Maze1125]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

"In mathematics, natural numbers are the ordinary counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... (sometimes zero is also included) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number]."

 

[El Poncho]

From what I have learned so far in maths Zero is not a Natural number but it is a Whole Number and an Integer.

There are two definitions of the natural numbers, one is all the positive integers and the other is all the positive integers and zero too.

They are whole numbers.

Natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5...

Whole Numbers: 0,1,2,3,4,5...

Integers: -2, -1 , 0, 1, 2 etc.

edit: Although I am only in Secondary school, you may be right.

"In mathematics, natural numbers are the ordinary counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... (sometimes zero is also included) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number]."

Ok Thanks

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

yes 0 is a number, some ancient mathmatic systems don't actually take 0 into account, you start wtih 1 and go from there, A relative position is thrown off by this, say you had to use a combination, if there is no zero, then thats one less number in the combination.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

"0" is the numerical representation of nothing. Of course as beings that exsist we cannot comprehend what nothingness (true nothingness) is.

A point made earlier stated that if I traveled in one direction then traveled the same distance in the opposite direction then mathmaticlly I have not traveled at all (according to the number zero). However when working out sums like this you do not work out the milage rather the distance. I.e traveling 3 miles east then traveling -3 miles east will equal a total distance of 6 miles rather than a distance of 0 miles.

To say that 0 is not a number is to say (by the same logic) that negative numbers are not numbers because they can not be accurately represented in the real world.

 

[starwarsgeek]

I claim that zero is more of a concept than a number

Yes, zero is a concept.
So is one, seventy-nine, negative fourty-eight, i, the fifth root of thirteen, and infinity. All numbers are concepts.

Say for example you have an apple. You then eat the apple. You still have one apple, it's just in a different locale.

A constant amount of matter does not disprove zero.

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...Of course, I understand the other side of the argument. If you don't have any apples around, then there must be 0 apples right? This starts bringing in semantics. Yes, I have 0 apples in my room at this current time. No, that does NOT make 0 a number. I can also say no apples are in my room. Is 'no' a number? Absolutely not.

Using the English language to phrase something differently does not disprove zero. I could say I have several apples in my room. Does that mean positive numbers aren't really numbers because I used the word "several"?

Here's a good example for everyone. I think this may be a major point too.

Say you travel 3 miles north to work (+3). After 8 hours, you travel 3 miles south back to home(-3).

Where did you end up (relative to starting point)? 0 miles away
How far away did you travel? 0 miles away
What was the total distance traveled? 6 miles away

You have traveled 6 miles, yet your position in space is 0, because you returned to your starting location. 6 != 0 yet you traveled both 6 miles and 0 miles. Can everyone understand where I'm coming from now?

Your distance problem does not disprove zero.

Alright, let's say you live at Point A and work at Point B. The distance between the two points is 3 miles, but once you return home, you are currently on point A (thus, 0 miles away from it). Distance from a point (0) and total distance traveled (6) are not the same thing.

Your argument is invalid. This is not philosophy, nor personal preference. Nothing is up for debate. It's math, it has a clear answer.

(In Halo announcer voice)
Topic......over

 

[carpathic]

"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."

Wrong.

There is zero anything between electrons and the nucleus of an atom for instance.

You are getting the abstract notion (meaning what zero represents) mixed up with what Zero actually "is".

 

[ikey]

Alright, thanks. I had a moment of ignorance.
I needed to be wrong for once, I haven't in a while and I was getting arrogant.

 

[oktalist]

Probably doesn't help much that a sarcastic statement amongst rational statements (regardless of correctness) does little to help in making a point

But that's my favourite kind of making a point!

If the worst thing I'm called in the space of a day is troll or child, I'd call it a good day but public treatment for me's largely been worse than online, something I hope very few would ever have to experience.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Alright, thanks. I had a moment of ignorance.
I needed to be wrong for once, I haven't in a while and I was getting arrogant.

You, sir, are awesome - it's rare for people on the internet to make any sort of genuine admission about any current knowledge limitations, let alone be this humble about conceding a point. You have restored my faith in internet debate as discussion, not competition. We're all wrong sometimes, but few of us are as open to accepting that as you are. It's a healthy attitude to have.

The good news is that you know the correct answer, but more importantly you understand why it's correct. You get to win this debate next time (if this ever comes up again in your life....).

 

[Lukeje]

There is zero anything between electrons and the nucleus of an atom for instance.

Ermm... the electron is often between the electron and the nucleus of an atom; it's stretched out into a probability distribution. There may be angles at which there is zero electron density, but there there will be `zero point energy'. Basically, empty space isn't empty. Particles and antiparticles are being constantly spontaneously created and annihilated. Yes, quantum field theory is weird.

 

[Kais86]

All numbers are placeholders, concepts, that's what numbers are. That's basically their definition.

Not really. 1 isnt a place holder.
1 can be put on its own.
There can be 1 cat in the 1 hat xD
There can be 1 fish, 2 fish, a single red fish, or a single blue fish.

But there cant be 0 red fish. Because the act of labeling them 0 means that they dont exist to be labled.

None of this is really as important as the fact that 0 is a number. Numbers themselves are placeholders for actual objects or concepts. You can't actually own a number and you can't really use them as anything except concepts unless you are using them to represent an amount of items. Even if the concept is that of the number itself.

 

[Krafty_Krocodile]

zero doesn't know what he's counting foooooooooooour (sorry crap x4 joke/pun) anyways it helps to do maths that way so I would say yes.

 

[superbatranger]

I always thought of it as being a number.

 

[Zacharine]

So your saying im wrong for calling 1 a number, when you litterally just said "Therefore, 1 can be a placeholder, while simultaneously being a number"

To put this in perspective, you are asking me "Is this furniture, or made of wood?"

not realizing that the categories can and often do overlap.

but is a rectangle a square? or is a square a rectangle?
They dont always over laps. Some things have 2 rules. And like 0 and 1, there are many rules.

And you've failed to show that this applies to categories 'placeholder' and 'number'.

YOu agreed with this just now, "some placeholders can be numbers".

So you've refuted yourself.

Now, unfortunetaly, I'll have to leave for a weekend vacation. I can get back to you on sunday.

If you have further arguments by then, I'll check them out.

ok. have a nice time. Give the Mr/Mrs/Closest living family member going with you my best.
And yes, some can, but 0 isnt one of them~

Just doing a quickie here.

So, we agree that some numbers can be placeholders: symbols that are replaced later by strings.

We agree number 1 is one of these.

Do you agree -1 is one of these?
Do you agree Pi is one of these?

I argue they are.

In fact, I'm prepared to argue any number is. But this was and is about zero, so I'll focus on that.

Now, convince me, what makes zero so special that unlike other numbers, it cannot be both a placeholder and a number.

Remember, so far, to formalize this just a tad
property (a) = is a number
property (b) = is a placeholder

Since we have symbols like 1, for which both (a) and (b) apply, you cannot simply declare that for zero "(b) applies, thus (a) does not".

Or to put it in another way: You have not established (a) and (b) as mutually exclusive, and you agree that there is at least one case where they explicitly are not exclusive: number 1.

Thus, generally, they cannot be mutually exclusive.

We both agree that for zero, (b) applies.

So, suggested next step for you:

Establish that specifically for zero, these properties are mutually exclusive.

Oh, and thanks for the well wishes.

 

[JoshGod]

well sir if your going to argue that 0 is not a number because as you said

then you there for have to say that 1 is not a number it is 0.9999999999999999 and that is true.

explanation of why tis true;
x=0.999999999
therefore
10x=9.999999999
if you subtract 1x from 10x then you get
9x=9
simpified
x=1

therefore sir i have confused myself, well done i would take my hat of to you, if only i was wearing one.

This only works if the string of 9s in 0.999999999 is infinitely long.

i know that im not an idiot thank you.

 

[silvermorning624]

snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
Use that definition then

And considering that i said, it could have a different rule from other numbers.
You just agreed with me by posting that. xD 0 can be a place holder and not a number.

That assumes, of course, that a placeholder cannot be a number (which numbers are).

So your saying 0 is not a nmber, but a place holder?

That would be a better way to put it. If you will notice I have written about this in my other post.

So then you agree with me? xD 100%?


I like how i thought everyone was against me, and now there are 2 people with more or less the exact same view as me.

Allow me to emphasis i find the idea to be much more than a placeholder. In that capacity it serves the purpose of place holder, but rather 0 can represent a much more profound idea.

 

[Player 2]

Yes, I have 0 frogs in my hand, if they're somewhere else it doesn't matter because they still won't be in my hand.

 

[T3hMonk3y]

]Here's a good example for everyone. I think this may be a major point too.

Say you travel 3 miles north to work (+3). After 8 hours, you travel 3 miles south back to home(-3).

Where did you end up (relative to starting point)? 0 miles away
How far away did you travel? 0 miles away
What was the total distance traveled? 6 miles away

You have traveled 6 miles, yet your position in space is 0, because you returned to your starting location. 6 != 0 yet you traveled both 6 miles and 0 miles. Can everyone understand where I'm coming from now?[/i][/u]

Your displacement is 0 whislt you have travelled a distance of 6m. Displacement is a vector quanity meaning that it needs a magnitude and a direction therefore displacement can be negative. Distance is a scalar quanity and therefore does not need a direction and cannot be negative EVER. It is impossible to travel the distance of -3m. However it is very possible to have a displacement of -3m.