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

[HotFezz8]

I feel it is a number, it can be used to represent a value. I'm sure I used the wrong words for what I am trying to say. I'm tired don't blame me.

to be fair i was unable to finish your intro, because its half 2 am and im tired, but i second this notion above.

in the end the language we speak was initially designed to help direct other monkeys to the bananas, so lets go back and examine zero in that concept:

"how many bananas are in that tree gurg?"

"zero oleg".

zero represents a number, or a lack of something. by the same mantra negatives are also numbers, because they show that something isn't there that was.

fuck it, im just going to tick "yes"...

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Well no, you owuldent be checking the hull of a boat of 0 holes, youd be checking the hull for 1 or more holes and finding none.

And you wouldent say, my boat has 0 holes, its complete, youd say it has every peice in place to complete it.

its like if you payed people to move stuff for you and you show up at your house where everything was missing, you wouldent say, "Theres 0 of everything in my house!!" you would say, "Theres nothing here."

Im saying, why use 0? its a number you cant attach to anything. When was the last time you told someone, "i have 0 of those." You wouldent. you would say "i dont have those." "I dont own any." or even "im empty on those."

0 isnt a number, for several reason. You cant place it, it has no value, and you cant use it without gimping your phrase xD a box with no cats in it is just a box. A bomb with no explosives is just a falling peice of metal.

It's a drastic oversimplification of language to pretend that declaring the absence of something is no longer counting how many of that thing there is - whether we would say 'zero' or 'nothing' completely misses the point. The act of looking at your couch, and internally recognizing it as 'couch' involves counting how many couches you see before you, and getting to 1. When yo come home and your couch is stolen, you look at where your memory tells you there should be 1 couch, and counting 0 couches. Whether you would say 'I have zero couches' misses the point - you have assigned the value of zero to 'how many couches?', and you would then talk about the ramifications, ie. "who stole my f*cking couch?".

Attaching a number to the absence of an expected thing is important, and zero has a value - unsurprisingly, the value of zero is 0.

 

[kouriichi]

Im not being stubborn. im debating my side of the argument to the best of my ability.
But this arguement isnt about negatives. Its about 0. the argument of negative numbers existing is not relative.

But if you removed the 1 guy from he doggy door, you would just have a doggy door.
You by your logic, there would also be 0 garbage trucks in the doggy door, 0 fish in the doggy door, 0 explosives in the doggy door and 0 guys in the doggy door. techinically, there would be 0 everythings in the doggy door. Even 0 0's.

Its not a real number, because you cannot measure it in value. I cannot pay someone in 0 100 dollar bills. You cannot eat 0 real apples and survive.

in our universe, there is no such thing as 0, because something is always filling the space of 0.

If you removed the 1 guy from the 1 doggy door, there wouldent be 0 guys and 1 doggy door, there would be 1 doggy door flap and 1 doggy door. There would be something to take the guys place, even if it was just air.

Just the fact that you were able to clearly and concisely give multiple examples of what there was 0 of in the doggy door should mean that you understood the meaning and existence of zero. How could one use something that doesn't exist? Like I said, you (and most everyone else disputing 0's existence) keep trying to give zero (and other numbers) a material, physical form.
So my challenge to you (and everyone else that reads this) is to show us all a picture of "1". not the symbol "1" for the symbol is right there >> 1 <<. I just want a picture of 1. Show us all a picture of what 1 represents. And if you show a picture with 1 apple (which is not what I mean by a picture of 1, for it's just a picture of an apple), I will reply with a picture with zero apples. And you will no more be able to disprove that there are 0 apples in my picture than I would be able to disprove there is 1 apple in yours.

Well the problem is that your arguing a completely differnt subject.
Your arguing if all numbers are real or not.
this is about just 0 xD


The arguement im trying to make is that 0 is not a number, because it has no value. You cannot give me 0 $100 bills and have me say thanks. you can give me 1 $100 dollar bills and i would say thanks.

0 cannot be given or taken. 2-1=1, not 2-1. So it wouldent be 0 guys and a doggydoor, its just doggydoor. You wouldent include what you removed.

Like I said again and again, you keep trying to give numbers a physical form. What I meant by the challenge to show a picture of "1" is not to prove or disprove the existence of all numbers, but to prove that the number "0" can be used in the exact same context as "1" (a picture with 1 apple vs a picture with 0 apples); that if a 1, being indisputably a number, can be used in the same context and/or situation as 0, then 0 must also represent a number.

And yes, I can give someone 0 $100 bills. I give people 0 $100 bills all the time. How many $100 bills did I just give you right now? 0. In fact, if you asked me how many $100 dollar bills I have ever given anyone in the entire duration of my life (the bank machine doesn't count.) I will say 0, because 0 is a number, and THE number that represents the quantity of $100 bills I have handed out.

Sure, it is 0 guys and a doggydoggy door, but thats redundant. Its pointless to include it. Its pointless to include 0 of something. So the number 0 is not a number, because there is no accuall use for it.

That is EXACTLY what I said in my first reply to you and you admitted that 0 guys in a doggy-door can be true. Just because it's redundant and pointless does not mean it doesn't exist. The Tellitubbies are redundant and pointless, and yet we have to suffer their existence.

But theres the problem. All of that is pointless.
you would never give someone 0 $100 dollar bills.
you would never say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank".
And its a machine. Its programmed to show something.
What im saying is, its pointless to use.
you break the normal way you talk to use the word 0.
Theres no reason to use it.
Oh, and the tellitubbies thing does have a point. it makes watching after children a dozen times easyer. They have a reason to be used. xD
Im not saying 0 as a whole doesnt exist, im saying its not a number, because it of the fact it has no value. its Nothing. its empty. its pointless.
Why say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank" when you would say, "Im broke." or "its empty."
Its use is not useful. its a place holder. Its there for another object, number, or being to fill in.
i have an empty box. im not going to say, "i have a box with 0 contents". im going to say, "its a box." I wouldent lable it "Box with 0 objects inside." i would lable it "empty.".

your argument is that you CAN use 0. My argument is that there is no reason to, because there are better ways/reasons/uses/points not to. Your trying to force 0 to be used by saying you CAN use it. But do you?

The average person probably uses the word 0 once a week or less. I cannot recall the last time i used 0. ((other then in this thread ofcourse)).

 

[Feste the Jester]

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?

We just covered this in physics. The six miles you traveled would be your distance. However, o miles would be your displacement (distance between finishing and starting points). You're comparing to different terms here with these answers.

 

[kouriichi]

Well no, you owuldent be checking the hull of a boat of 0 holes, youd be checking the hull for 1 or more holes and finding none.

And you wouldent say, my boat has 0 holes, its complete, youd say it has every peice in place to complete it.

its like if you payed people to move stuff for you and you show up at your house where everything was missing, you wouldent say, "Theres 0 of everything in my house!!" you would say, "Theres nothing here."

Im saying, why use 0? its a number you cant attach to anything. When was the last time you told someone, "i have 0 of those." You wouldent. you would say "i dont have those." "I dont own any." or even "im empty on those."

0 isnt a number, for several reason. You cant place it, it has no value, and you cant use it without gimping your phrase xD a box with no cats in it is just a box. A bomb with no explosives is just a falling peice of metal.

It's a drastic oversimplification of language to pretend that declaring the absence of something is no longer counting how many of that thing there is - whether we would say 'zero' or 'nothing' completely misses the point. The act of looking at your couch, and internally recognizing it as 'couch' involves counting how many couches you see before you, and getting to 1. When yo come home and your couch is stolen, you look at where your memory tells you there should be 1 couch, and counting 0 couches. Whether you would say 'I have zero couches' misses the point - you have assigned the value of zero to 'how many couches?', and you would then talk about the ramifications, ie. "who stole my f*cking couch?".

Attaching a number to the absence of an expected thing is important, and zero has a value - unsurprisingly, the value of zero is 0.

But the value of 0 being 0 is a paradox.
Now youve ruined your own argument. XD
Because 0 is nothing and its value is nothing, 0=nothing.
There by, 0 has no value as i said.
If i see my couch missing, its not because theres 0 couchs,
its because im pissed i have to sit on the floor. When the internet is down, i dont think,
"OMGZ, 0 interwebz to be found!!" I think, "well crap. how am i gunna post on The Escapist."
Im trying to look at this from more of a scientific view then just, "you use 0 so it so its a number".

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

Zero is more conceptual than other numbers but in most cases can be treated as a number. Lets face it.. you'd not want to explain zero in the similar way as "i" (being the square root of negative one). It just makes sense to see it as a number.

 

[shadowyoasis]

All numbers are concepts. Romans didnt have the number zero they just had a whole diffrent number. instead of 10 they had x 20 would be xx 21 xxi so 0 it is a number in our system. Remember numbers are all in the head and created by man.

Romans didn't have math as we know it, mentioning the Roman numerical system is flawed in this argument. They didn't have math equations(problems) like 2 + 5 = 7.

The arguement im trying to make is that 0 is not a number, because it has no value. You cannot give me 0 $100 bills and have me say thanks. you can give me 1 $100 dollar bills and i would say thanks.

0 cannot be given or taken. 2-1=1, not 2-1. So it wouldent be 0 guys and a doggydoor, its just doggydoor. You wouldent include what you removed.

Sure, it is 0 guys and a doggydoggy door, but thats redundant. Its pointless to include it. Its pointless to include 0 of something. So the number 0 is not a number, because there is no accuall use for it.

Except for the fact that I actually can give you exactly 0 $100 dollar bills. 0 has a value, that value is null or none. You have expressed a concept of an object, in this case $100 dollar bills. You are then counting how many $100 dollar bills and giving it a value, in this case the value of none is 0. If 0 is not a number, than I ask you this. I have never given you any money and certain have not given you any $100 dollar bills. If that is the case, what is the numerical value of the number of $100 dollar bills I have given you?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

But theres the problem. All of that is pointless.
you would never give someone 0 $100 dollar bills.
you would never say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank".
And its a machine. Its programmed to show something.
What im saying is, its pointless to use.
you break the normal way you talk to use the word 0.
Theres no reason to use it.
Oh, and the tellitubbies thing does have a point. it makes watching after children a dozen times easyer. They have a reason to be used. xD
Im not saying 0 as a whole doesnt exist, im saying its not a number, because it of the fact it has no value. its Nothing. its empty. its pointless.
Why say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank" when you would say, "Im broke." or "its empty."
Its use is not useful. its a place holder. Its there for another object, number, or being to fill in.
i have an empty box. im not going to say, "i have a box with 0 contents". im going to say, "its a box." I wouldent lable it "Box with 0 objects inside." i would lable it "empty.".

your argument is that you CAN use 0. My argument is that there is no reason to, because there are better ways/reasons/uses/points not to. Your trying to force 0 to be used by saying you CAN use it. But do you?

The average person probably uses the word 0 once a week or less. I cannot recall the last time i used 0. ((other then in this thread ofcourse)).

Now it is you who's arguing something else - you're arguing about the usage of the word 'zero', not whether 0 is a number. If your logic was valid, all of your arguments above could be applied to suggest that 1 is not a number either, since you keep saying 'a'.

 

[Unesh52]

...yes it is. Your post seems to make the argument that "nothingness" as a physical concept is impossible, because even in vacuo you still have, by definition, a vacuum.

As a "number" though, yeah, of course 0 is real.

0 as an abstract methematical concept, yes, because we say so (no really, that's why). 0 as a denotation of quantity, yes, because if I have a dozen eggs in a box and I use them all, I have to be able to articulate that there are no more eggs left (in the box; the fact that they still "exist" in another form is irrelevant).

I'm sure like 50 people have already gotten you on this, but it annoyed me enough that I wanted to say it myself. You're not talking about numbers, you're talking about abstract, philosophical concepts that share similar sounding terms with concrete ones.

 

[Zhalath]

As a mathematician and man of science, I know that zero is a number.

 

[kouriichi]

All numbers are concepts. Romans didnt have the number zero they just had a whole diffrent number. instead of 10 they had x 20 would be xx 21 xxi so 0 it is a number in our system. Remember numbers are all in the head and created by man.

Romans didn't have math as we know it, mentioning the Roman numerical system is flawed in this argument. They didn't have math equations(problems) like 2 + 5 = 7.

The arguement im trying to make is that 0 is not a number, because it has no value. You cannot give me 0 $100 bills and have me say thanks. you can give me 1 $100 dollar bills and i would say thanks.

0 cannot be given or taken. 2-1=1, not 2-1. So it wouldent be 0 guys and a doggydoor, its just doggydoor. You wouldent include what you removed.

Sure, it is 0 guys and a doggydoggy door, but thats redundant. Its pointless to include it. Its pointless to include 0 of something. So the number 0 is not a number, because there is no accuall use for it.

Except for the fact that I actually can give you exactly 0 $100 dollar bills. 0 has a value, that value is null or none. You have expressed a concept of an object, in this case $100 dollar bills. You are then counting how many $100 dollar bills and giving it a value, in this case the value of none is 0. If 0 is not a number, than I ask you this. I have never given you any money and certain have not given you any $100 dollar bills. If that is the case, what is the numerical value of the number of $100 dollar bills I have given you?

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.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

But the value of 0 being 0 is a paradox.
Now youve ruined your own argument. XD
Because 0 is nothing and its value is nothing, 0=nothing.
There by, 0 has no value as i said.
If i see my couch missing, its not because theres 0 couchs,
its because im pissed i have to sit on the floor. When the internet is down, i dont think,
"OMGZ, 0 interwebz to be found!!" I think, "well crap. how am i gunna post on The Escapist."
Im trying to look at this from more of a scientific view then just, "you use 0 so it so its a number".

The value of zero being zero is not a paradox, its an a priori truth. Zero is a value, by any mathematical definition of a numerical value. If you want to 'be scientific' about this, then you have to start by defining your terms rigorously and then sticking with those definitions - finding that there is no internet at your house is functionally equivalent to finding the lack of an internet you expected, and the language you might use aloud does not really have a bearing on your thought processes while analysing your situation - unless you say everything you think, ever.

 

[Eumersian]

As far as I know, Zero is the numerical representation for that which has no value.

 

[kouriichi]

But theres the problem. All of that is pointless.
you would never give someone 0 $100 dollar bills.
you would never say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank".
And its a machine. Its programmed to show something.
What im saying is, its pointless to use.
you break the normal way you talk to use the word 0.
Theres no reason to use it.
Oh, and the tellitubbies thing does have a point. it makes watching after children a dozen times easyer. They have a reason to be used. xD
Im not saying 0 as a whole doesnt exist, im saying its not a number, because it of the fact it has no value. its Nothing. its empty. its pointless.
Why say, "i have 0 $100 dollar bills in the bank" when you would say, "Im broke." or "its empty."
Its use is not useful. its a place holder. Its there for another object, number, or being to fill in.
i have an empty box. im not going to say, "i have a box with 0 contents". im going to say, "its a box." I wouldent lable it "Box with 0 objects inside." i would lable it "empty.".

your argument is that you CAN use 0. My argument is that there is no reason to, because there are better ways/reasons/uses/points not to. Your trying to force 0 to be used by saying you CAN use it. But do you?

The average person probably uses the word 0 once a week or less. I cannot recall the last time i used 0. ((other then in this thread ofcourse)).

Now it is you who's arguing something else - you're arguing about the usage of the word 'zero', not whether 0 is a number. If your logic was valid, all of your arguments above could be applied to suggest that 1 is not a number either, since you keep saying 'a'.

\
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.

 

[kouriichi]

But the value of 0 being 0 is a paradox.
Now youve ruined your own argument. XD
Because 0 is nothing and its value is nothing, 0=nothing.
There by, 0 has no value as i said.
If i see my couch missing, its not because theres 0 couchs,
its because im pissed i have to sit on the floor. When the internet is down, i dont think,
"OMGZ, 0 interwebz to be found!!" I think, "well crap. how am i gunna post on The Escapist."
Im trying to look at this from more of a scientific view then just, "you use 0 so it so its a number".

The value of zero being zero is not a paradox, its an a priori truth. Zero is a value, by any mathematical definition of a numerical value. If you want to 'be scientific' about this, then you have to start by defining your terms rigorously and then sticking with those definitions - finding that there is no internet at your house is functionally equivalent to finding the lack of an internet you expected, and the language you might use aloud does not really have a bearing on your thought processes while analysing your situation - unless you say everything you think, ever.

Well no, but to be honest, i should have argued it different.

You dont think, 0 couches. You think, "Absenss of couch. There was a couch here, now there isnt."

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Yes it's a number the Indian and Muslim philosophers saved math by adding it. And thing of it this way "You can't go negative one miles ether"

 

[FluxCapacitor]

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.

Zero is a number - you could, if you really like, consider it the silent default number. Whenever you don't specify the presence of a thing or multiple things, you are implicitly implying that there are none of that thing. In your example of the doggy door, it can be useful to talk about '1 doggy door + 0 man' wholly because you have created a context wherein a man is expected in the doggy door. If someone showed you the picture of the man in the doggy door, then the doggy door without, and asked you the difference, you would say "there's no man in the second one', because the context of the first made his absence in the second noteworthy.

 

[ethaninja]

Here to me, zero means nothing. As in null, nill, void, etc.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

...What's wrong with that argument? Seems valid to me.

But zero does denote the value of nothing, I don't see why that ruins its status as a number.

 

[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.