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

[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?

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?

Yes.

Exactly like every other number.

Delay-tactics noted.

Now, are you going to answer?

 

[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.

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.

Well no, i mean in a less absolute term.
Like, theres 1 cat on my sofa.
Or 1 fish in my dinner.

1 does mean something, because you can place 1 to something.

there can be 1 nothing. What 1 nothing is would be Space ((like around our planet)). So even 1 can be a relative number in describing something.

 

[Mikaze]

I'm in a physics-y mood at the moment so I will disprove your point with physics.

Bosons have 0 mass, not neglible mass but actually 0, yet they exist as matter and can interact with other matter that has mass, like quarks. By having 0 mass they can also travel at the speed of light since mass dilation cannot effect something that has 0 initial mass.

So there.

NB: That probably sounds a lot more coherent in my mind than it does in plain text.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

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.

Infinity is not a number. It just works like one for "most" intents and purposes.

 

[Nieroshai]

Nice use of logical fallacies. Also, all numbers are quantifications. Zero is a quantity. There are zero apples in the basket. The basket is empty. The basket, which has the potential to hold apples, HAS NO APPLES! There is no presence of apple in the container! It has ceased to be! It is no more! It is an EX-APPLE!

 

[FluxCapacitor]

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.

THEY EAT CAKE

Oh, you would say that wouldn't you, Comrade Cake! You've been trying to sow misinformation and disinformation about the dessert habits of our reptilian overlords for almost as long as I've been thinking about them! Nope, it's the rocking chair and shotgun on my porch for me - I shall sit and think up a new dessert on my own. A dessert that transcends your petty pie/cake agenda, whatever it is.

 

[SleepsAnyWhere]

I'm in a physics-y mood at the moment so I will disprove your point with physics.

Bosons have 0 mass, not neglible mass but actually 0, yet they exist as matter and can interact with other matter that has mass, like quarks. By having 0 mass they can also travel at the speed of light since mass dilation cannot effect something that has 0 initial mass.

So there.

NB: That probably sounds a lot more coherent in my mind than it does in plain text.

I very much like the way you think

 

[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?

Yes.

Exactly like every other number.

Delay-tactics noted.

Now, are you going to answer?

But what you just said means im right, that 0 itself is not a number but a place holder.

it defys its own definition because it has no value, meaning it cannot define a quantity or amount. And if you tryed to use it to, there would be no "perticular" quantity or amount to define.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Well no, i mean in a less absolute term.
Like, theres 1 cat on my sofa.
Or 1 fish in my dinner.

1 does mean something, because you can place 1 to something.

there can be 1 nothing. What 1 nothing is would be Space ((like around our planet)). So even 1 can be a relative number in describing something.

No. In your example it'd be. There's that particular cat on your sofa, Or that particular fish in your dinner. Anything less than absolute is concept. Just because you can place 1 to something doesn't mean 1 means something.

 

[FluxCapacitor]

IT HAS A ZERO VALUE. God damn, man, you can't keep ignoring this point.

 

[Coldie]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without determinable/finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

 

[righthead]

I guess my final thought is that I would visually define a number as: given a certain defined unit of length and a direction and a point in space, a member of the set of all possible scalar multiples of that distance that can be traveled along the line traveling through the point in that direction. Since it is possible to not travel, zero is a member of that set. Since my definition is different, I suppose it would be natural that certain differences would arise

 

[FluxCapacitor]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

 

[kouriichi]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without determinable/finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

But the problem is, Nil means nothing correct?
So it doesnt have a value. The value is nothing. No value to be had.

if 0 has nothing as a value, theres nothing you can use it for, other then a place holder.

 

[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?

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?

Yes.

Exactly like every other number.

Delay-tactics noted.

Now, are you going to answer?

But what you just said means im right, that 0 itself is not a number but a place holder.

Because to be a number, means to be a placeholder; a symbolic representation of a particular abstract concept.

it defys its own definition because it has no value, meaning it cannot define a quantity or amount.

Yes it can. Zero quantity. Lack of amount.

Just like a circuit not connected to a power-source has zero current running trough it.

Just like an empty basket has zero apples in it.

And if you tryed to use it to, there would be no "perticular" quantity or amount to define.

No True Scotsman-fallacy noted. Lack of connection to reality noted. Lack of connection to mathematics noted.

Leading to: sophistry noted.

sophistry
n noun (plural sophistries) the use of fallacious arguments, especially to deceive someone. Øa fallacious argument.

Meaning, create an actual mathematical argument why zero is not a number, and we can continue. Until then, you're just conflating philosophy with logic and mathematics.

 

[SleepsAnyWhere]

So this thread is pretty much closed?

 

[kouriichi]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

 

[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*

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

not really fair to answer yes and no.

 

[Zacharine]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Good point. Not enough coffee apparently, because I myself didn't think of that.

*tips hat to Coldie*

 

[Zacharine]

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?

Zero, itself, has a value on its own. And that value is nil. Numbers without finite values are not covered by this discussion.

Here's a little something, Euler's Identity. The quintessence of mathematics, simple and beautiful. There are five numbers in this equation and zero placeholders.

Oooh, why didn't I pull Euler ages ago?! Good point, as this equation encapsulates the fundamentals of so many branches of mathematics, and includes zero as a vital part! Though I guarantee it doesn't sink in...

Oh no XD ofcourse not.
Poeple said the world was flat,
so unless you can esplain who that itself means that 0 is a number,
it doesnt sway my argument.

Conflation between measurable reality, and artificial realm of mathematics noted.