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

[bojac6]

I realize that I already know the outcome of this poll. Most of you are going to say yes. And I don't blame you, because that's what you've been taught.

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

It's both, zero is a number and a place holder used to mark the tens place. But zero existed before we had place-holder number systems. But it is a number, as it falls into the definition of a natural number and you can have zero of something, both theoretically and practically.

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.

This is just being pedantic and basically an argument based on wordplay.

Say for example you have an apple. You then eat the apple. You still have one apple, it's just in a different locale. There is always at least 1 of something (that actually exists of course), even if it is not within your present sight. There are no planes in my front driveway, but there ARE planes somewhere else.

Again, you're just using alternate meanings of word. Practically, if all your apples are digesting, you do not have any apples. If all your money is in the bank, you have zero cash. It is a quantity that exists within a set, whether or not something exists outside of the set.

Some people might tell me then, "Well if you can't have zero of something, then you're saying you can't have negatives either." Well, I disagree.

For another example, say you travel -1 miles forwards. Well all that means is that you traveled 1 mile BACKWARDS. Positive and negative imply direction. Zero has no direction, and no value. If a number can be described as 'A figure used to represent value', and zero has no value, then logically zero would not be a number.

Zero has a value of null. Nothing is a value. This is kind of like the difference between dying and never having existed. Sure, the end result is the same, a world without you, but they are quite different categories.

Also, if I owe somebody a dollar, I have -1 dollars. That has nothing to do with direction. When I pay it, I owe them zero dollars. Saying it just implies direction reduces all negative numbers to positive numbers. You traveled one mile backwards, that still is a positive integer of travel.

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.

You admit it's semantics. Is "a" a number? Absolutely not, but it implies "one." Is no a number? No, but it implies "zero."

Plus, consider the possibility that there may be, ONE SINGLE PARTICLE of an apple in my room, SOMEWHERE. Just one. It may be in the air, on my desk, on the wall, whatever. That's just .000000000000000000000000000000000001 apples or whatever, not zero.

But this is math, not science. In math, there can be exactly zero apples because it's all numbers and theory. Just like there can never be a perfect circle in the real world, no representation of it will every truly be a perfect circle. Does that mean a perfect circle does not exist? Of course not, I can express it right here: 2 * pi * radius = diameter. That's a perfect circle, you just can't draw it.

Also, by your argument, no number exists. Consider you have one apple and a single particle of another apple. Then you don't have just one apple. You can never have any number of apple, by your argument, because there is always the possibility of a small fraction of other apple.

That's the gist of my argument. If you have a challenge to offer me, I will try to counter it. Please consider this carefully before going "Of course it is, don't be a f***ing idiot."

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.

And now you rule out a perfectly legitimate argument, saying it's not valid. Zero is defined as a number, but we're not allowed to use the definition to defend that it is a number? That's like saying "I think castles are made out of paper and saying that Windsor Castle is made out of stone is an idiot argument because it's just called a castle, but it's not really a castle."


If your argument was that zero does not practically describe physical objects, I might agree. But it describes concepts in the real world (money, value) and it describes things that cannot be divided into smaller units in the real world (There are no people, for instance. I don't care how many particles of people exist, it is possible for a room to have zero humans in it).

 

[YouBecame]

Well you can see 1 cat.
You litterally cannot see 0 cats.

One is a number, because you can give it value. 1+1=2 so it has a definative value.
0+0=0. It has no value. Zero cannot be shown outside the realm of concept, so its only an idea.

And scientifically, idea's dont exist eather. Little zappy lightening bolts in your head do.

I dont know what you propose a theory to be then, but any answer other than "an idea" I will disagree with you on.

I would also like to pose that even if you maintain your "you cant see 0 cats" argument, you cannot actively see the number 1, either. You certainly cannot see i cats, and yet i is a number which is as important to modern day mathematics, physics and engineering as 1, e or pi.

Oh which is a good thought... You can never see an irrational number of objects. They too are still numbers though. Say you will never see pi cats. pi is certainly a number.

 

[SGrahambo]

Zero is a much easier number to grasp then others, because we have all seen "0" of something. For example: look in your hand right now and count how many jellyfish you are holding. With exception to perhaps one of you, you should have zero jellyfish in your hand. It's not that hard to grasp that you aren't holding a jellyfish, and a number can easily be assigned to the total number of jellyfish you possess.
I think a thread should be created about "Infinity" for that is a number that is much harder to grasp and to prove.

 

[Sren]

Well then how do account for Binary? 1011011011101001101

This is a different argument really, binary uses 0 as off not as an actual 0. For example; if a computer program tells a component to send a 0 in binary the component will actually send a voltage, usually between 0.5+ and 3 volts. Because with binary if you told a computer component to send 0 volts then another component would be unable to do anything because it would not know a command was issued. However I do understand what your trying to say, without the number 0 in binary we would not have a base 2 number system meaning no computers :O and without 0 binary based systems would not exist because there are rules that computers use that require a 0 to add or subtract in binary, a good example of this is two's compliment.

For this reason I think 0 is a number.

 

[hawkeye52]

zero represents a denomination as much as one does. also if you have a zero of something in an area it means that it isn't there and since you can't represent nothing without 0 in a numeric sense. i suppose you could consider the concept of 0 as being a lack of something but couldnt you also say that the lack of something being the equivalent of 0

 

[Naheal]

Zero is digital god.

The look on Batou's face is classic.

 

[kouriichi]

Zero is digital god.

You made my day 8)

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.

And because anything with no mass, matter, weight or form scientifically does not exist, 0 does not exist.

it wouldn't physically exist, but numbers aren't physical.

What i mean, is that it cant be physically represented.

Show me 1 cat.
Now show me 0 cats.

you cant show 0 of something, because its nothing.

It has no value. you cant lable something as 0, without it not existing to begin with.

See what im getting at? XD

Your example doesn't work. I can show you something without any cats, and there are 0 cats. Not disagreeing with you, but the example doesn't work.

But theres a problem with your argument to.
It would just be an object. A box with 0 cats in it is just a box. Not a box with 0 cats.
XD so that example doesnt work eather. Basically, whatever object you put 0 to, doesnt exist, so you cant put it anywhere.

its pointless to put 0 to anything really. You wouldent say, "I have 0 cats." youd say, "I dont have any cats." Why attach 0 to something that doesnt exist?

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Zero is a number. Not in the tangible sense as other numbers, but it was a concept needed for math more advanced than counting sheep.

 

[ReVeNaNTFuRY]

yes 0 is a number

"I realize that I already know the outcome of this poll. Most of you are going to say yes. And I don't blame you, because that's what you've been taught."

So you are saying if you have been taught that A is not an alphabet then it is not? It is not about whether or not we were taught that way, its about how we see it. You see 0 as not a number for your reasons and we see it as a number for ours


"It is a placeholder to theorize the space between positive and negative."

Yes you can say that, but that example only applies to numeric. In the binary system two is represented as 10, and the 0 there wouldn't be a placeholder


"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."

This is like saying I have 1 apple, but you can also say I have a apple. Is 'a' a number? no it is not, so in your argument here 1 is also not a number. Having no apples is the same as having 0 apples.

And yes I do see your point in this and why you think 0 is not a number, but if you want to live in this world you will have to consider 0 as a number.

 

[kouriichi]

Well you can see 1 cat.
You litterally cannot see 0 cats.

One is a number, because you can give it value. 1+1=2 so it has a definative value.
0+0=0. It has no value. Zero cannot be shown outside the realm of concept, so its only an idea.

And scientifically, idea's dont exist eather. Little zappy lightening bolts in your head do.

I dont know what you propose a theory to be then, but any answer other than "an idea" I will disagree with you on.

I would also like to pose that even if you maintain your "you cant see 0 cats" argument, you cannot actively see the number 1, either. You certainly cannot see i cats, and yet i is a number which is as important to modern day mathematics, physics and engineering as 1, e or pi.

Oh which is a good thought... You can never see an irrational number of objects. They too are still numbers though. Say you will never see pi cats. pi is certainly a number.

Well yes, you can see 1 cat.

heres an example.

There is 1 guy stuck in a doggy door.
1 has a value. You can place mass, weight, and volume to the number 1.
There by, in the physical world, 1 can exist.

Now remove the 1 guy.
There is now just a doggy door. Not 0 guys in 1 doggy door.

XD see what i mean?

 

[stormtrooper9091]

Is it a number? Definitely.

Is it just a number? Hell no

 

[YouBecame]

snip

I put it to you that you can indeed see 0 half men in catflaps. However my point about the seeing 1 is that the number 1 itself cannot be seen. But also you seem to be arguing as though both of our arguments are exclusive.
As the guy above wrote. A number: yes. More than that? Im not going to argue. But is 0 a number? Ask the ancient greeks, and indian mathematicans... Certainly it is.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

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

All numbers are concepts. Including the number zero.

 

[Tzekelkan]

I understand the way you're coming from, OP, but I counter with the fact that numbers are themselves concepts. You say "zero is not a number, it's a concept". But I say that one (1) is also a concept. One apple is not a number, it's an apple.

Oh, and I think the argument of there are always apples somewhere in the world is flawed. When I say, I have no apple I implicitly mean right here within my field of vision or in my arm. If you had to count the apples that are found somewhere else when I speak of my own (whether having any or not) you need to count them even if you have a non-zero number of apples. You couldn't say "I have three apples" because you'd have to count all the apples in the world (or all the apple particles in the air).

It's silly really. Does it matter whether zero is classified as a number or not? It's just a convention anyway. Unless you deal with a very specific branch of theoretical mathematics or study the philosophy behind mathematics, it's of no great use argueing over what amounts to semantics.

 

[SGrahambo]

Well you can see 1 cat.
You litterally cannot see 0 cats.

One is a number, because you can give it value. 1+1=2 so it has a definative value.
0+0=0. It has no value. Zero cannot be shown outside the realm of concept, so its only an idea.

And scientifically, idea's dont exist eather. Little zappy lightening bolts in your head do.

I dont know what you propose a theory to be then, but any answer other than "an idea" I will disagree with you on.

I would also like to pose that even if you maintain your "you cant see 0 cats" argument, you cannot actively see the number 1, either. You certainly cannot see i cats, and yet i is a number which is as important to modern day mathematics, physics and engineering as 1, e or pi.

Oh which is a good thought... You can never see an irrational number of objects. They too are still numbers though. Say you will never see pi cats. pi is certainly a number.

Well yes, you can see 1 cat.

heres an example.

There is 1 guy stuck in a doggy door.
1 has a value. You can place mass, weight, and volume to the number 1.
There by, in the physical world, 1 can exist.

Now remove the 1 guy.
There is now just a doggy door. Not 0 guys in 1 doggy door.

XD see what i mean?

But if you still say that there is 0 guys in 1 door, does that make it any less true than saying there is just 1 door? more often than not, the exclusion of such a detail such as "0 guys" implies that there is zero of anything that holds any subjective meaning. Thus the reason people would not say "0 guy and 1 doggy door" is because it would just be redundant.

 

[PoliceBox63]

I had this debate with my maths teacher once. (maths teacher is brilliant think of him as such not a dur dur stubborn teacher).
In Mathematics 0 is a number. (in mathematics all sorts of shit can fly)
In reality... well 0 is the absence of a number.

 

[darkfire613]

Zero represents a single value, just as 12, 185, or -274729. Infinity is a concept as it does not have a single value.

 

[YouBecame]

But if you still say that there is 0 guys in 1 door, does that make it any less true than saying there is just 1 door? more often than not, the exclusion of such a detail such as "0 guys" implies that there is zero of anything that holds any subjective meaning. Thus the reason people would not say "0 guy and 1 doggy door" is because it would just be redundant.

It's also redundent to say 1 = 1. Doesn't make it untrue though.
That's my last post for the night... workies!
(ill be happy to continue this chat tomorrow evening time if youre interested. Oh and i do recommend checking out some of the philosophy of numbers arguments that are around)

 

[kouriichi]

snip

I put it to you that you can indeed see 0 half men in catflaps. However my point about the seeing 1 is that the number 1 itself cannot be seen. But also you seem to be arguing as though both of our arguments are exclusive.
As the guy above wrote. A number: yes. More than that? Im not going to argue. But is 0 a number? Ask the ancient greeks, and indian mathematicans... Certainly it is.

But the problem that i find, is 0 has no value.
1 and on all have values.
Numbers were ment to show value.
0 has no value, meaning it cannot be shown.

There would never be 0 guys in a catflap. there would be ((insert amount)) units of air in the catflap.

because there is something there. Not 0.

For 0 to exist, it would have to occupy space. So the minimum amount of something that can exist 1.

its the same with Space. Space itself is not 0, but 1. There is one space aorund earth. One gaint pool of nothing, filled millions of somethings.

 

[interspark]

well of course we can have zero of something, i have zero girlfriends for example. even if you view zero as a concept, even if it is the boarderline between positive and negetive, that doesnt stop it from being a number