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

[TheBaron87]

Wow... it's rare you see somebody go into so much detail based on a premise that is so completely wrong. What the hell is your definition of "number"?

EVERY number is a concept. If you're going to argue that 0 isn't a number because it "doesn't exist" or such nonsense, then no numbers exist. Either 0 and 1 are both numbers or neither are.

 

[fundayz]

How did this get 20 pages of thread?

A number, by definition, is the name we give to a concept pertaining to value or quantity. Zero can be both a value and a quantity, and is therefore a number.

 

[oktalist]

Written mathematics existed for thousands of years without a concept or written form of zero.

But it was never much use for anything other than counting things.

The Babylonians invented zero around the 7th century BC. China and India had zero in the 4th century BC. Symbols representing zero were in use in ancient Greece and later the Roman empire, recorded in AD 130 and AD 525 respectively. The Arabic numerals were invented around the same time, including their own symbol for zero, the one we still use today. This was only introduced to Europe seven centuries later, so it is often stated incorrectly that Europeans had no symbol for zero before then.

The Mayans and Olmecs invented zero in the 1st century BC, but their mathematics obviously developed independently of Eurasian systems.

The ancient Greek philosopher-mathematicians argued about this very same topic ("how can nothing be something?"). Interestingly, they also argued about whether 1 was really a number, or just the unit of numbers.

 

[Altorin]

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

you're thinking like an ancient roman, rather then a modern human.

Of course we can show 0 as a physical representation. We just need to put a label on what we're showing, and it can be ANY label.

I can show you 0 pictures of cats:

You can't say I'm wrong. There are 0 pictures of cats there.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

0=nothing. 0 is a symbol for nothing, just as 1 is a symbol for a single object. It's a number. The last part you're just talking about displacement.

 

[oktalist]

Interesting theory, but as a software engineer I have to both disagree, and provide counterpoints

if (! isnan(0.0)) puts("/thread");

/thread

 

[SFR]

I'm starting to think after 20 pages the OP gets it. You can disagree all you want, but 0 is a number by concept and definition.

 

[DannibalG36]

DUDE. PAY MORE ATTENTION IN MATH CLASS.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

Interesting theory, but as a software engineer I have to both disagree, and provide counterpoints

// End thread if the value of fZero is a number
float fZero = 0.0f;

if (! isnan(fZero))
{ 
printf("/thread");
}

Output:
/thread

Tst tsk, you forgot to comment, and surely you know hard coding is a bad practice. I fixed it for ya

 

[Woodsey]

Yes.

Numbers measure quantities (1 apple, 2 oranges, etc.). 0 does that, except the quantity is nothing.

 

[Sporky111]

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?

you have not travelled both 6 and 0 miles you have travelled 6 miles and are 0 miles away from your origin point.
distance from origin /= distance travelled
therefore 0 /= 6

I see what your getting at but your example bugged me like hell because it was incorrect mathematically and you are trying to make (partially) a mathematical point.

edit: I should say that distance from origin is not the same as distance travelled because distance from origin can = distance travelled

We actually call that displacement, and it's a totally different concept than distance. It comes to play a lot in physics once you get into vectors of forces and velocities.

You can move three miles east, then three miles west. The distance you've travelled is 6 miles, but your displacement from your point of origin is 0 miles.

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.

You're saying 0 doesn't exist, and yet here you have an example of where it can exist. If you have a perfect vacuum, then you have 0 particles of matter in that space. Zero is a number, it defines the value of having nothing.

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.

Actually, if you were to get into it this way I might say that 1 mile backwards doesn't equal -1. It actually equals +1, but in a negative direction. Keep that in mind for my next point.

If I were to be facing forward and not moving, I could say that I've traveled 0 miles forward. I could also say that I'm traveling 0 miles per hour, relative to the ground. In physics, it's actually very common to give an object at rest a velocity of 0 m/s and a displacement of 0 m. Another way of thinking of that is that an object at a constant velocity of say, 10 m/s has no measurable acceleration. As long as it's moving at a constant rate of speed, it's acceleration equals 0.

0 equals a starting point. Without zero, "x + 3 = 3" would have no answer. You say zero has no value, and yet here "x = 0". The value of x is 0.

 

[gigastrike]

Zero doesn't have a value. It's a theoretical placeholder in the same vein as "i". Is "i" a number? No.

 

[Nifarious]

All numbers are concepts. I am A person. I am not ONE person unless considered in relation to other numbers of people, numbers that are only present in their absence. I am ONE from the group, not when the group is over there, but when the group is absent from the sentence, the thought, entirely. But this A isn't specific to me either. A is rather a generalized sum of traits, actively erasing all that is specific to each person. This erasure by generalization does away with the reality of each A, forming the concept, which human minds feel at ease with. Minds can manipulate concepts, not reality, the individual.

Numbers, like words, have their own parasitic relationship with the real, being.

Imagine an apple. You think of the appleness of an apple, its properties. The word apple is a generalized sum of the various things called apple. ONE apple is now the concept of appleness coupled with the concept of singularity. But singularity is not the individual, the specific and unique. ONE is not THIS. One is only possible by imagining a lack of two or three that was not previously there-that is, that is not real, but concept.
Zero is no different. Imagine zero apples. You take the quiddity of an apple and from this anchor, make a lack which has no reality or being of its own. You do not consider zero as empty space, but the apple as absent. So too is there no 2.5 in the world. Only 2.5 insofar as it is not 2.4 or 2.6. This is different than an apple which is not an apple because it is not an orange. A word, like apple, takes real individual apples and blurs them into a mushy image for thought's consumption. But every number can only stand on the void that it makes of all the numbers that it is not.

Zero, then, in this sense, is the ultimate number, what all numbers are, underneath.

 

[oktalist]

Interesting theory, but as a software engineer I have to both disagree, and provide counterpoints

#include <math.h> // for isnan
#include <stdio.h> // for puts
int main(int, char**)
{
  // End thread if the value of fZero is a number
  float const fZero = 0.0f; // declare fZero as a const float and initialise it to zero
  if (! isnan(fZero)) // if fZero is not NaN...
  {
    // declare sEndThread as a ptr to const char and initialize it to string literal
    char const* sEndThread = "/thread";
    puts(sEndThread); // write "/thread\n" to stdout
  }
  return 0; // return from function, terminating program with exit status 0
}

Output:
/thread

Tst tsk, you forgot to comment, and surely you know hard coding is a bad practice. I fixed it for ya

Har har. Is that enough comments for you? Also: Hungarian notation, NOOOOO!

[small]I'm such a nerd...[/small]

 

[oktalist]

Is "i" a number? No.

Um, yes? It's as much of a number as 1 is. If i is not a number then neither is 1.

i is the basis of the imaginary numbers.
1 is the basis of the real numbers.

 

[Amphoteric]

Without the number 0 you wouldn't be able to solve quadratic equations.

 

[MEEBO17]

I never really thought about it. But I guess it is just a place holder.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Saying "well there might be .0001 of an apple in my room" doesn't mean anything. I can say without fear of being wrong that there are zero alien space ships in my room at the moment, yes you can replace zero with "no", but say there was one, I could replace one with "an".

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

I see what you're getting at, unfortunately, what you're getting at is wrong. Show me 1. You can't because 1 is an abstract concept, as is zero, numbers themselves are abstract, numbers represent a quantity of something concrete, all numbers are abstract means of representing how many of a concrete object exist, zero representing none doesn't make it any more abstract than any other number.

Erm numbers are not abstract? They are the opposite! Numbers are universal! Numbers are logical! What the hell do you mean they are abstract?! Zero is a concept. Numbers are not just a concept they are a universal law. If aliens came to our planet the one thing we would have in common was the ability to count. They may do it differently but at the end of the day if there is "one" of something, you count one. If two ones are together it makes two of something. Numbers are ot abstract. Zero is abstract. You can have one atom. Thats not abstract. Thats fact. I can have on electron. Hell if your going to get weird with me HAVE ONE QUARK! Have one "plank" a space so small it defys logical sense.

Zero is nothing. It is no put into a sequence of numbers. Count 0 ducks for me. You didnt do any counting. Zero isnt a number

 

[bad rider]

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.

In that logic you would have to backtrack further, that apple came from a tree, tree from a seed eventually you get to a point where it evolved into an apple tree plant. Keep applying this you either get god, or explosion. So technically going by that logic there is only 1, explosion or god thats your choice.

10 apples divided by one person = One explosion.

 

[Twilight_guy]

This is zero -> {}
This is one -> {{}}
This is two -> {{},{{}}}
This is three -> {{},{{}}},{{{}}}}
And so on.
Clearly even though zero isn't a thing it still exists as a representation of nothing. Think of it as a pointer that goes nowhere. The pointer exists even if what it goes to does not.

I've seen that definition before, and I think you're missing some parts... but I can't be sure because I've only seen it once. Could you explain how addition works in there?

Three might be {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}.