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

[hyplion]

what if you have AN apple in the room, is "an" a number?

i do even think zero is not just a number its an even number as i can divide it by 2, still zero but makes it an even number.

 

[Zacharine]

your taking my words the wrong way.
1000 is not 0.

But requires the existance of zero, in order to exist itself. And that you cannot seem to get.

0 is a place holder. using it is more or less pointless.

So you continue to ignore the fundamental principles upon which your computer works.

Im not saying it shouldent exist, im saying its not a number.
binary code doesnt run off just 0's.

Yes it can - when examining a binary circuit, 000 is just as meaningful as 111.

its one long string of 1's and 0's.
0 itself is pointless.

So you continue to ignore the fundamental principles upon which your computer works.

So you cannot have a circuit with no current running trough it?

Write down 10, without using zero.

Write down 1001 without using zero.

Show me how to calculate vectors without the concept of a zero-vector.

Let us use cats as example, if tangible physical objects matter so much to you.

Show me i cats.

show me lim (x->0) x cats (hint, this is a number that is one infitesimally small step above zero, but is also as such included in a line of positive real numbers or part of the number line of ]0,Infinity] )

show me a picture of yourself holding -1 cats.

Show me precisely Pi cats.

In fact, show me anything tangible in any of those quantities. SHow me -1 apples. Pi water molecules, electric equipment with i voltage.

Zero is a number, a placeholder for the value of 'no value', just like 1 is just a placeholder for the value of 'singular whole unit'. Just like i is a placeholder for a value that cannot exist in the real world, and Pi for a value that is determinable only abstractly.

10 and 0 are 2 different numbers and were not arguing weather "i" is a real number or not. Were arguing 0. Not Pi, not Pie ((like the others)) and not negatives.

Is 0 a place holder? it cant be both a place holder and a value. For a place holder has no value, but the value put in it.

And i could show you -1 apples xD
*shows plate of 3* the 4th apple is in the fridge. go look if you want. When you come back with it, there maybe -3 apples because others have taken them.

No, there would be zero apples, if them all have been taken while I was away. To have -1 apples, you'd need to have an anti-apple. Otherwise, you are showing me not the value -1 but rather the calculation "remove one".

10, is the combination of numbers 1 and 0, created by counting to 9, going one step further and declaring "we've had 1 full ten-count, and zero to add"

just like in a binary system 10 (base 2) = 2 (base 10) or read as "one-zero binary equals two base ten) = "We've had one full two-count, and zero one-count to add"

Both of these require the existance of number zero to be written.

And since you refuse to answer, I take it you cannot answer.

So your definition of number cannot handle lim (x->0)x, or i, or Pi as numbers.

Meaning, your entire argument is based on a flawed definition which in turn is flawed due to the hidden No True Scotsman fallacy.

What is the difference between a symbolic representation of a value and a placeholder for a value? I argue there isn't one. Both are definitions of numbers, with the value of the placeholder or symbol assigned denoting which number.

such as i, an irrational value
such as lim (x->0) x, an unmeasurably small value
such as Pi, a conceptual-only, abstract value
such as -1, negation of value (not removal, negation)

all are numbers, placeholders for value. If you agree, then what possible basis do you have for rejecting 0 as a placeholder for zero value?

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

zero people ever ragequit after winning

Well played, sir. Does that make Nylarathotep a placeholder somehow?

I think so, along with all the other zero people who ragequit after winning.

Oh, those zero people, they need to borrow some fiveness from girls.

 

[righthead]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

zero people ever ragequit after winning

Well played, sir. Does that make Nylarathotep a placeholder somehow?

I think so, along with all the other zero people who ragequit after winning.

Oh, those zero people, they need to borrow some fiveness from girls.

I think I need to borrow some fiveness from girls.

 

[kouriichi]

What is the difference between a symbolic representation of a value and a placeholder for a value? I argue there isn't one. Both are definitions of numbers, with the value of the placeholder or symbol assigned denoting which number.

such as i, an irrational value
such as lim (x->0) x, an unmeasurably small value
such as Pi, a conceptual-only, abstract value
such as -1, negation of value (not removal, negation)

all are numbers, placeholders for value. If you agree, then what possible basis do you have for rejecting 0 as a placeholder for zero value?

ugh. Your arguing about something completely differnt then what i am. Im not talking about binary code.
This debate is about just the number 0.
Nothing to do with computers, nothing with irrational numbers.
Just 0 itself.

Do you think 0 itself is a number?
Now why do you think this?

 

['Aredor]

The root of the arguement is that 0 exists merely as a symbolic placeholder.

What you don't seem to understand is that all numbers are symbolic placeholders. When I say I have 2 apples, I'm stating that I have more than 1 apple and less than 3 apples, but that all apples I have are whole. When I say I have 1/2 apple, I'm stating that I have 1 apple but that half of it has been taking away. When I say I have 0 apples, I'm stating that I have no apples at all. The fact that you can touch 2 apples or 1/2 apple doesn't make the numbers we assign to count that any less of a symbolic placeholder.

Take another viewpoint: you said it yourself that there could be one atom of an apple floating around in my room right now, and that I'd then have 10^-130 apples in my room instead of one. If I indeed have one apple in my room, you can bet your ass that millions of its atoms are floating around in my room, let's say it's 10^8 atoms, otherwise I couldn't smell it. So not all of the apple's atoms are on the apple itself. So when I look at the apple, how many apples do I see? Certainly not one, but 1 - (10^8*10^-130). What I'm saying is that you never have exactly 1. Even 1 atom can be split. So 1 is just as symbolic as 0 is.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Oh don't worry, I am tasting frosting right now.
ON MY FUCKING PIE!

You're doing pie wrong! Cake is the one with the frosting! You're also a double agent! If the cake is a lie, and now I see your pie is frosted with deception, then clearly the only solution is to go live in the woods with a shotgun on my lap waiting for the forces of the One World Government to arrive and murder me because I know too much.

I wonder what kind of dessert our secret reptilian overlords eat? I bet it's tasty.

 

[Kais86]

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

 

[kouriichi]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

wait, was that directed at me? xD

If so you cant measure nothing, because theres nothing to measure.

if there are 0 apples you cant measure the number of apples there are, thus you wouldent now it was truely 0 because you couldent accually measure the number of apples.

ow. i think i pulled something vital.

So from context I infer that your definition of a number is something that can be measured, is that correct?

More then that. Something tanganle. Something that can be givin, taken, or subject to change. It has to have value.

wouldn't that be an object rather than a number?

yes and no.
An object could go by that definition.
But it also couldent.

I mean, a number has to be something that you can use for a real purpose.

Can you call your 0 cats to your lap?

No because there are no cats to call. You can call 10 imgainary cats to your lap, because to you, they are real. They are something you can call.

0 is nothing. Its value is just that. Nothing. you cant call nothing.

To call 0 cats would mean you are calling nothing! XD

 

[twasdfzxcv]

This is getting way too much attention then it needed to be.

Zero is a number. It is by definition a number. Number doesn't exist. Number is an abstract concept.

So let's just end this thread and stop this pointless argument.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

Sure it does, I have 0 understanding of what you're trying to say, you fishy pirate man. And I take offense at your previous post; saying someone has 0 apples is a perfectly accurate and measurable indication of how many apples they have. Number.

*ragequits pointless argument after winning*

zero people ever ragequit after winning

Well played, sir. Does that make Nylarathotep a placeholder somehow?

I think so, along with all the other zero people who ragequit after winning.

Oh, those zero people, they need to borrow some fiveness from girls.

I think I need to borrow some fiveness from girls.

I need to add some sixness to girls. Hot.

 

[SleepsAnyWhere]

The "answer" here is really, very simple.
Because no one here understands the question in the same way (We all interpret and have varying understandings of different meanings), there can be no one correct answer as most people will have different opinions and ways of thinking.

And for the "fact" that if something has no location, mass, value ect. means that it does not exist. Then all data, imagination, thought or anything beyond (Human) comprehension dose not "exist" and existence in it's self is just another level of understanding. But we all have varying understandings and cannot truly understand another's way of thinking.

The only thing you need to fully understand is that there are things (or concepts) that can't be understood because we as a form of existence have a limited understanding.

If you had any trouble understanding this philosophic concept, that is because you and me have different levels of understanding.

But as for me I think that 0 is a numeric value (as a place holder), other wise there would be no number over 1 - 9. It is defined as a number, thus 0 is a number, but this is only because the way I've been taught and have understood the idea taught to me.

 

[kouriichi]

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

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

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

 

[Merkavar]

zero is a number just like black and white are colours. this sounds like one of those primary school things.

like how many fingers do you have? 10. no 8 cause 2 thumbs.

 

[Zacharine]

What is the difference between a symbolic representation of a value and a placeholder for a value? I argue there isn't one. Both are definitions of numbers, with the value of the placeholder or symbol assigned denoting which number.

such as i, an irrational value
such as lim (x->0) x, an unmeasurably small value
such as Pi, a conceptual-only, abstract value
such as -1, negation of value (not removal, negation)

all are numbers, placeholders for value. If you agree, then what possible basis do you have for rejecting 0 as a placeholder for zero value?

ugh. Your arguing about something completely differnt then what i am. Im not talking about binary code.
This debate is about just the number 0.
Nothing to do with computers, nothing with irrational numbers.
Just 0 itself.

Do you think 0 itself is a number?
Now why do you think this?

Why do you erraneously think that you can separate 0, a fundamental aspect of mathematics, from... well, mathematics?

Any discussion of numebers, is a discussion of mathematics.

Red Herring noted. Evasion noted.

I think zero is a number, because it is a placeholder for value. I think zero is a number, because it is

number
n noun
1 an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity.
2 a quantity or amount.

Now, do you accept i, -1, lim (x->0) x and Pi as numbers? If yes, why do you think zero is not a number?

 

[kouriichi]

The "answer" here is really, very simple.
Because no one here understands the question in the same way (We all interpret and have varying understandings of different meanings), there can be no one correct answer as most people will have different opinions and ways of thinking.

And for the "fact" that if something has no location, mass, value ect. means that it does not exist. Then all data, imagination, thought or anything beyond (Human) comprehension dose not "exist" and existence in it's self is just another level of understanding. But we all have varying understandings and cannot truly understand another's way of thinking.

The only thing you need to fully understand is that there are things (or concepts) that can't be understood because we as a form of existence have a limited understanding.

If you had any trouble understanding this philosophic concept, that is because you and me have different levels of understanding.

But as for me I think that 0 is a numeric value (as a place holder), other wise there would be no number over 1 - 9. Thus 0 is a number, but this is only because the way I've been taught and have understood the idea taught to me.

I like how me and you half agree and half dissagree on this subject. xD
I see it as only a place holder, while you see it as both place holder and number.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

The "answer" here is really, very simple.
Because no one here understands the question in the same way (We all interpret and have varying understandings of different meanings), there can be no one correct answer as most people will have different opinions and ways of thinking.

And for the "fact" that if something has no location, mass, value ect. means that it does not exist. Then all data, imagination, thought or anything beyond (Human) comprehension dose not "exist" and existence in it's self is just another level of understanding. But we all have varying understandings and cannot truly understand another's way of thinking.

The only thing you need to fully understand is that there are things (or concepts) that can't be understood because we as a form of existence have a limited understanding.

If you had any trouble understanding this philosophic concept, that is because you and me have different levels of understanding.

But as for me I think that 0 is a numeric value (as a place holder), other wise there would be no number over 1 - 9. Thus 0 is a number, but this is only because the way I've been taught and have understood the idea taught to me.

I was wondering when someone would tout absolute relativism. Sorry mate, but there are objective truths - maybe not about recollection, or worldview, but in terms of mathematics there are objective truths and objective falsehoods. What is and is not a number is a question best answered by mathematics, not pop philosophy.

 

[kouriichi]

What is the difference between a symbolic representation of a value and a placeholder for a value? I argue there isn't one. Both are definitions of numbers, with the value of the placeholder or symbol assigned denoting which number.

such as i, an irrational value
such as lim (x->0) x, an unmeasurably small value
such as Pi, a conceptual-only, abstract value
such as -1, negation of value (not removal, negation)

all are numbers, placeholders for value. If you agree, then what possible basis do you have for rejecting 0 as a placeholder for zero value?

ugh. Your arguing about something completely differnt then what i am. Im not talking about binary code.
This debate is about just the number 0.
Nothing to do with computers, nothing with irrational numbers.
Just 0 itself.

Do you think 0 itself is a number?
Now why do you think this?

Why do you erraneously think that you can separate 0, a fundamental aspect of mathematics, from... well, mathematics?

Any discussion of numebers, is a discussion of mathematics.

Red Herring noted. Evasion noted.

I think zero is a number, because it is a placeholder for value. I think zero is a number, because it is

number
n noun
1 an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity.
2 a quantity or amount.

Now, do you accept i, -1, lim (x->0) x and Pi as numbers? If yes, why do you think zero is not a number?

I'll answer your question once i fully understand where you sit on 0
So you belive 0 is a place holder for value?
Meaning that it, itself, has no value on its own?

 

[twasdfzxcv]

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

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

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

Yes really all number are placeholders and concept.
Define 1. 1 by itself doesn't mean anything.

there can never be 1 fish or 1 cat or 1 hat because by numbering them you're implying that all cats are equal and all fishes are equal and all hats are equal, which is absolutely not true.

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

I'd say zero is as much of a number as infinity is.

The rest is up to the space time continuum, and the semantics of English. Ie: none of my beeswax.

Wow I haven't used that word in a long time :O.