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

[p3t3r]

Your using the wrong words to determine what your saying. That and there can be no Negative movement. movement is always either at nothing ( 0 ) or moving ( .00000001 - infinity in speed ) moving backwards would still be a positive movement just in a diffrent direction

well if we are dealing with directions then it is certainly possible to have negative movement i if i moved 3 m south then i could also say i have moved -3m north

i think the guy who made this thread just made his deffinition of numbers to not include 0. 0 is an absolutely critical number

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Well no. You can mark things as 1. If your moving to a new house, and you have a box full of clothes and a book, you could mark it x ammount of shirt, x ammount of pants, and 1 book.
You could use it to lable something. Or you could say, i have 1 grenade. I have 1 map.
You dont always use A. in place of one.
Say your friend said, "I have 9 credit cards." Would you say, "I have a credit card."

No, you would say, "I only have 1." you can use the number 1 in everyday life. But you cant use 0 without everyone looking at you funny XD

As my original post here said, 0 has no value, no mass, weight, and you cannot lable something 0.
You can barly use 0 without being forced to.

Alright, I'm going to need you to define what you think a number is then - I'm working off the counting numbers as a basis for my argument, since I believe that is the most inclusive set of 'real world' numbers that don't cloud the issue with vector maths or decimal rationalisation. You seem to be arguing from the standpoint of a zero-exclusive natural numbers - which is a very narrow subset of 'numbers'. Would you agree that pi is a number? Because your functional definitions above seem to suggest that you don't.

And As I've answered over and over, 0 is a value, 0 mass is a measure of mass, zero weight is a measure of weight, you can absolutely label the absence of something expected' 0.

 

[p3t3r]

Ugh. you persist with this.
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.

When you force 0 to be used, your breaking the way things work. your saying you can give someone 0 dollars. But you cant. you can give them 0 nothings.

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.

Once again, there are loads of ways to acknowledge $0 without having to hand over 0x $100 bills - for example, if you're going around a room collecting debts from people, and you get to someone who owes you $0, or nothing, you don't take any money from them. Because of the context, it is clear to all parties that the amount owed was $0. Just because you don't vocalise it does not make it somehow not a number.

But theres several problems with that scenario too. ((other then the fact you couldnt get everyone who owed to money together))
Why would i bother stopping at a person who owes me nothing? If i know mike, jhon, and carl owe me money, why would i bother stopping at joe to think, he owes me $0?

I wouldent think, they all owe me $0. i would think, ive collected all $100. You count up on what you collected, not down on what you didnt. And if you did, youd be doing it wrong.

Because you were collecting money, why would you be counting down? why wouldent you be adding up? I know i always do.

What im trying to say is, 0 isnt a number, because its use/value/point/mass/weight/ect eather dont exist or arnt worth it.

just because your ignoring 0 doesn't mean it doesn't exist. there hast to be zero in order to be anything else. i would start with 0 apples than gain 1 after someone gives it to me. i currently have 0 of a lot of things put since it is possible for me to own them then i have to have a zero amount. just because we ignore them and 0 of one thing equals 0 of another each individual thing has a zero.

 

[kouriichi]

Well no. You can mark things as 1. If your moving to a new house, and you have a box full of clothes and a book, you could mark it x ammount of shirt, x ammount of pants, and 1 book.
You could use it to lable something. Or you could say, i have 1 grenade. I have 1 map.
You dont always use A. in place of one.
Say your friend said, "I have 9 credit cards." Would you say, "I have a credit card."

No, you would say, "I only have 1." you can use the number 1 in everyday life. But you cant use 0 without everyone looking at you funny XD

As my original post here said, 0 has no value, no mass, weight, and you cannot lable something 0.
You can barly use 0 without being forced to.

Alright, I'm going to need you to define what you think a number is then - I'm working off the counting numbers as a basis for my argument, since I believe that is the most inclusive set of 'real world' numbers that don't cloud the issue with vector maths or decimal rationalisation. You seem to be arguing from the standpoint of a zero-exclusive natural numbers - which is a very narrow subset of 'numbers'. Would you agree that pi is a number? Because your functional definitions above seem to suggest that you don't.

And As I've answered over and over, 0 is a value, 0 mass is a measure of mass, zero weight is a measure of weight, you can absolutely label the absence of something expected' 0.

Thats easy. A number is something that shows value. You can give all numbers 1 and on a value.
You can have 1 cat on your lap, or 4. There can be 3 cars on the freeway, or 300.

Numbers have a value that do no change. They can be attached to an object.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

But theres several problems with that scenario too. ((other then the fact you couldnt get everyone who owed to money together))
Why would i bother stopping at a person who owes me nothing? If i know mike, jhon, and carl owe me money, why would i bother stopping at joe to think, he owes me $0?

I wouldent think, they all owe me $0. i would think, ive collected all $100. You count up on what you collected, not down on what you didnt. And if you did, youd be doing it wrong.

Because you were collecting money, why would you be counting down? why wouldent you be adding up? I know i always do.

What im trying to say is, 0 isnt a number, because its use/value/point/mass/weight/ect eather dont exist or arnt worth it.

Not stopping at the person is as clear a signifier to an observer as stopping and asking for no money. Whether you're counting down or up in your head doesn't change the transaction that occurred with every individual in the room. You either took money from them, implying that they owed you $x, or you didn't take money from them, implying that they owed you $0. We can muddy the waters with ideas like "what if I'm scared of one of the guys?" or "what if someone stiffs me, or didn't turn up?" but this all misses the point of the thought experiment. It's about the counting, and the significance of needing a number to acknowlege that no other number is needed here.

 

[kouriichi]

Ugh. you persist with this.
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.

When you force 0 to be used, your breaking the way things work. your saying you can give someone 0 dollars. But you cant. you can give them 0 nothings.

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.

Once again, there are loads of ways to acknowledge $0 without having to hand over 0x $100 bills - for example, if you're going around a room collecting debts from people, and you get to someone who owes you $0, or nothing, you don't take any money from them. Because of the context, it is clear to all parties that the amount owed was $0. Just because you don't vocalise it does not make it somehow not a number.

But theres several problems with that scenario too. ((other then the fact you couldnt get everyone who owed to money together))
Why would i bother stopping at a person who owes me nothing? If i know mike, jhon, and carl owe me money, why would i bother stopping at joe to think, he owes me $0?

I wouldent think, they all owe me $0. i would think, ive collected all $100. You count up on what you collected, not down on what you didnt. And if you did, youd be doing it wrong.

Because you were collecting money, why would you be counting down? why wouldent you be adding up? I know i always do.

What im trying to say is, 0 isnt a number, because its use/value/point/mass/weight/ect eather dont exist or arnt worth it.

just because your ignoring 0 doesn't mean it doesn't exist. there hast to be zero in order to be anything else. i would start with 0 apples than gain 1 after someone gives it to me. i currently have 0 of a lot of things put since it is possible for me to own them then i have to have a zero amount. just because we ignore them and 0 of one thing equals 0 of another each individual thing has a zero.

No, you woudent start with 0 apples. You would start with 1 empty hand. because you have an object that needs and apple in it. you would gain one, and start with 1. And when you got rid of it, you wouldent have 0 apples left. you would go back to having 1 empty hand.

Im not ignoring 0. Zero applies that there is nothing. There is something. In the space where the 0 apples would be, there would be air, water, earth or fire.
There would be something there, to be replaced.

To put 0 to something means it doesnt exist. So really, even if you wanted to, it wouldent be 0 apples. it would just be 0, because it doesnt matter what the object is, it doesnt exist.

You cannot own 0, because you would be owning something that doesnt exist. You cannot own what you does no exist. Its not there for you to own.

 

[kouriichi]

But theres several problems with that scenario too. ((other then the fact you couldnt get everyone who owed to money together))
Why would i bother stopping at a person who owes me nothing? If i know mike, jhon, and carl owe me money, why would i bother stopping at joe to think, he owes me $0?

I wouldent think, they all owe me $0. i would think, ive collected all $100. You count up on what you collected, not down on what you didnt. And if you did, youd be doing it wrong.

Because you were collecting money, why would you be counting down? why wouldent you be adding up? I know i always do.

What im trying to say is, 0 isnt a number, because its use/value/point/mass/weight/ect eather dont exist or arnt worth it.

Not stopping at the person is as clear a signifier to an observer as stopping and asking for no money. Whether you're counting down or up in your head doesn't change the transaction that occurred with every individual in the room. You either took money from them, implying that they owed you $x, or you didn't take money from them, implying that they owed you $0. We can muddy the waters with ideas like "what if I'm scared of one of the guys?" or "what if someone stiffs me, or didn't turn up?" but this all misses the point of the thought experiment. It's about the counting, and the significance of needing a number to acknowlege that no other number is needed here.

But you can acknowlage someone owes you nothing without them owing you 0.
They didnt owe you anything to begin with, meaning they owe you nothing. Not 0.
0 is not nothing. But nothing is zero. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Someone cant owe you 0$. Because 0 is nothing, it nullifys itself into nothing.

So they dont owe you 0$, they owe you nothing.

 

[Naeo]

I say yes. Zero represents a quantity in my view of thinking- and claiming it represents "an abstract concept" or the like and that that is mutually incompatible with quantity is just a difference in views, not necessarily a factual dissention- said quantity being "none", or when something is absent. Right now, were I to count the number of, say, planets on my desk the answer would be "zero". A value.

Sure you could say it's "the absence of something and not a quantity", but then 1 wouldn't be a number because it's the presence of something, not a quantity. There is one computer on my desk. That identifies the computer unambiguously and has almost a philosophical level of meaning to it.

So if zero isn't a number, neither is one. But I say zero is a number and one is awesome.

 

[captainwalrus]

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'.

 

[Lavi]

0 isn't a natural number

 

[cookyt]

Ugh. you persist with this.
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.

When you force 0 to be used, your breaking the way things work. your saying you can give someone 0 dollars. But you cant. you can give them 0 nothings.

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.

Once again, there are loads of ways to acknowledge $0 without having to hand over 0x $100 bills - for example, if you're going around a room collecting debts from people, and you get to someone who owes you $0, or nothing, you don't take any money from them. Because of the context, it is clear to all parties that the amount owed was $0. Just because you don't vocalise it does not make it somehow not a number.

But theres several problems with that scenario too. ((other then the fact you couldnt get everyone who owed to money together))
Why would i bother stopping at a person who owes me nothing? If i know mike, jhon, and carl owe me money, why would i bother stopping at joe to think, he owes me $0?

I wouldent think, they all owe me $0. i would think, ive collected all $100. You count up on what you collected, not down on what you didnt. And if you did, youd be doing it wrong.

Because you were collecting money, why would you be counting down? why wouldent you be adding up? I know i always do.

What im trying to say is, 0 isnt a number, because its use/value/point/mass/weight/ect eather dont exist or arnt worth it.

just because your ignoring 0 doesn't mean it doesn't exist. there hast to be zero in order to be anything else. i would start with 0 apples than gain 1 after someone gives it to me. i currently have 0 of a lot of things put since it is possible for me to own them then i have to have a zero amount. just because we ignore them and 0 of one thing equals 0 of another each individual thing has a zero.

No, you woudent start with 0 apples. You would start with 1 empty hand. because you have an object that needs and apple in it. you would gain one, and start with 1. And when you got rid of it, you wouldent have 0 apples left. you would go back to having 1 empty hand.

Im not ignoring 0. Zero applies that there is nothing. There is something. In the space where the 0 apples would be, there would be air, water, earth or fire.
There would be something there, to be replaced.

To put 0 to something means it doesnt exist. So really, even if you wanted to, it wouldent be 0 apples. it would just be 0, because it doesnt matter what the object is, it doesnt exist.

You cannot own 0, because you would be owning something that doesnt exist. You cannot own what you does no exist. Its not there for you to own.

Okay,

Unless you're arguing strictly about the abstract concept of a number system, stick UNITS on your numbers. Example: 23 Miles, 42 Seconds, 95673 Joules, etc. Always conserve your units.

Apples don't spontaneously change into oranges (usually), and hands don't spontaneously change into apples. Sure you CAN say that you have one empty hand, but fact is mutually exclusive to the absense of apples in that hand.

This absense can be expressed colliqially in several different ways: no apples, nothing in the hand... Strictly depending on your notation, you can express this in terms of the number zero. Just because you can express it in a different - but equivlent - notation does not mean you can deny the existance of the other, unconventional notation.

Before you get riled up, yes, zero can,in fact be assigned a concrete unit. Zero denotes an absense and the unit denotes what the zero is an abense of. This is exactly the way the number one represents a single quantity of a unit."

Above all, please realize that our numerals are a fundemental building principal of our mathematics, and, as such, must be clearly defined by those using it, rather than derived. Yes, the value of zero does cross its meaning the similar concept of nothingess in a concrete plane, but that is mostly a consiquence of the structure of our language and the culture from which it is derived, and not of the intrinsic value of zero itself.

 

[randomsix]

I believe that it has to be a number because how else is there going to be a reciprocal for infinity. Also zero like all other numbers is a variable.

There is no reciprocal for infinity, as infinity is not a number, but a concept. As such, its "reciprocal" would be another concept, not 0, which is a number.

OT: 0 is a number because it is a member of the Rational Numbers because it can be written a/b for some integers a and b where b is not 0.

Edit: I'm sorry if anyone takes this the wrong way, but this argument smells of trolling.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Thats easy. A number is something that shows value. You can give all numbers 1 and on a value.
You can have 1 cat on your lap, or 4. There can be 3 cars on the freeway, or 300.

Numbers have a value that do no change. They can be attached to an object.

Okay, you're just suffering from a misdefinition here. You're talking about natural numbers - that means a subset of numbers specifically picked so that what you say is true, ie real positive integers. These are the numbers of discrete mathematics - i ball, 2 gloves, etc. The big problem with defining numbers this way is that it leaves so many out; it's real easy to ask a question regarding numbers that these ones can't answer. If I have 1 pie and 2 people, how much pie do we each get? 1/2 a pie, but this can't be expressed with the naturals because it's a fraction. If I'm betting money, and win $50, then lose $100, what's my balance? -$50, but that can't be expressed with naturals either because the '-' denotes a vector. What is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference? pi, but that certainly can't be expressed as a natural. Are none of these numbers?

And if you can agree to see them as numbers, why not agree to count the lack of something as "number of things = 0"?

 

[kouriichi]

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.

 

[randomsix]

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.

You can never have a concrete example of 0 because it represents a void/lack of. But 0 can be a number because numbers are abstract ideas and do not require physical implementation to prove their existence.

 

[kouriichi]

Thats easy. A number is something that shows value. You can give all numbers 1 and on a value.
You can have 1 cat on your lap, or 4. There can be 3 cars on the freeway, or 300.

Numbers have a value that do no change. They can be attached to an object.

Okay, you're just suffering from a misdefinition here. You're talking about natural numbers - that means a subset of numbers specifically picked so that what you say is true, ie real positive integers. These are the numbers of discrete mathematics - i ball, 2 gloves, etc. The big problem with defining numbers this way is that it leaves so many out; it's real easy to ask a question regarding numbers that these ones can't answer. If I have 1 pie and 2 people, how much pie do we each get? 1/2 a pie, but this can't be expressed with the naturals because it's a fraction. If I'm betting money, and win $50, then lose $100, what's my balance? -$50, but that can't be expressed with naturals either because the '-' denotes a vector. What is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference? pi, but that certainly can't be expressed as a natural. Are none of these numbers?

And if you can agree to see them as numbers, why not agree to count the lack of something as "number of things = 0"?

Because the lack of something isnt "number of things = 0".
Its nothing. 0 is a place holder. its there for a real number to be put in. You cant accually have 0 in our universe.

Show me one example of 0 that i can hold,touch,feel,see,eat,breath or dance to.
You cannot. Because 0 does not exist. 0 is nothing. you can hold 1 breath. you can taste the air its made of, you can feel when its cold, you can hear it when its blowing and you can see it when its broken ((like with a jet going over 1000 mph.)).

0 is not tangable because it doesnt exist.

 

[cookyt]

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.

 

[Firetaffer]

This thread just blows my mind! I mean sheesh!

 

[righthead]

Your argument is well made, but does not cover rigorous mathematical definition as it is currently arranged (My understanding is that math, on the most rigorous level, undergoes an overhaul every 50 years or so once some genius determines that doing so means everything else still works but makes some ridiculously complex concept relatively simple.)

0 is a number in as much as it is part of the real number system. Further it serves an important function (a word which I hesitate to use as a math major outside of a mathematical context) in that system as the additive identity. To call it only a placeholder would indicate that the concept of no change has no mathematical significance, which is not true.

I think it might be more accurate to argue that zero is not a quantity. But that point appears to have already been made.

I would imagine that it is pretty much unanimously agreed by mathematicians that zero is a number. However some other questions involving zero are less agreed upon. For example, is zero even?

 

[kouriichi]

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.

You can never have a concrete example of 0 because it represents a void/lack of. But 0 can be a number because numbers are abstract ideas and do not require physical implementation to prove their existence.

But by that logic, anything people want to exist can.
its an idea. its not real. You can see 1 of something. you can count 1 of something. That makes it a number.

Now do me a favor, and try counting all the 0 objects around you. You cant count 0, because it cannot exist. The point of it being a number, is that it isnt a number. Its the void where a number should be.