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

[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.

 

[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.