Is zero a number? Why some people say it's 1: A number divided by itself is 1. Looking at number theory and abstract algebra, there are many ways that mathematical algebras can be set up, but the reason the one we use is agreed upon, is because it so closely describes what we know: the universe as we know it. Believe what you will–but don’t try be “philosophical” and “anti-mainstream” and “different” for the sake of forsaking a sound mind. Typing will be much harder but the sentence “My hand has 0 fingers” will be true. Your last post about traditional marriage is particularly insightful — pity the server with the link to the original paper is down. Bede or one of his colleagues used the letter N, the initial of nulla, in a table of epacts, all written in Roman numerals. XX should mean one hundred in 10-base counting. – Humpty-Dumpty talking to Alice in “Through the Looking Glass”. Your question is meaningless because it is semantical, not logical, and that is not your fault, thats just the apparent and unfortunate truth here. In that case, I would say that the value zero does not exist. Since I’m an electrical engineer, I’ll use an example from my field: suppose I am using a voltmeter to measure voltages between two points in a live circuit. Get rid of one it doesn’t make sense to use it at the beginning of a multiple-digit number. You cannot take what was not added. This is not really a mathematical question, but a question of the philosophy of mathematics. If we count with TEN-BASE math, it makes sense to give each of those numbers TEN CHARS as I wrote above. Ask an olden times shepherd to count the sheep in a pen, and he (they were almost invariably male) would answer 1, 2, 3 etc etc. 0 can act like a number. It’s not a number if infinity is not a number as it is it’s opposite as -1 is to 1. So again, confusing at first, but i think is better. Zero and negative values convey information just as positive numbers (see my original voltage example), so I would say that they are numbers, too. Counting with “zeros” at the end of each 10 base unit, doesn’t mean zero has a value, just because you say it does. That said, nominalism is much at-home in a materialist worldview, so it would be a default position for a consistent and thoroughgoing materialist. That being X like the Romans perhaps, or whatever you desire. In math lingo, 0 is the *unique* solution to the equation. 0 isn’t a number, a number is an actual quantity that is represented by numerals (the Hindu-Arabic symbols) we use today that we call “numbers”. $5.17 is a “real” quantity (on paper, for example) but you cannot point to 5.17 dollar bills. But the same cannot be said of zero or negative numbers. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems. The modern symbol â0â may have arisen from the use of sand tables that were used to calculate t⦠A thing The Microsoft Excel's IF function can recognize negative numbers and change them to zero without affect positive numbers. Zero isnât a member of the set of Natural Numbers since you normally donât start counting with zero. Also, your use of the term “real number” is interesting since the same term has a mathematical meaning that is different than the way you use it. Since zero has no value, it is not a number. But saying something has intrinsic value to how we look at numbers doesn’t make it so. Perhaps to be considered a real number, a mathematical symbol must have an actual value. It is a vehicle for moving a concept from the consciousness of one being to another, just like all numbers; and they also, do not exist. Infinity is too hard for me. So I clicked up my computer calculator and divided 1 X 0 and I was surprised at what came up on my calculator which nothing but numbers has ever come up before with anything but numbers including zeros but this time what came up surprised me it was a text answer that said: “NOT A NUMBER” and I have a Mac so how can Apple be wrong about that. I think you can make a case that zero exists in the weak sense (can be established by postulates and primative notions to be non-contradictory) but does not exist in the strong sense. It has a function and fulfills the function; therefore, it is a flower……who makes definitions? So there are three options of going ahead: (1) accepting that dividing by zero doesn’t yield a number, and that certain workarounds in the form of approximations may still yield interesting results (as mathematicians are currently doing), (2) to update how we view Mathematics in order to incorporate these paradoxical concepts (try to imagine a new colour), or (3) foolishly stating that zero is not a number simply because the above two options require an understanding of Mathematics not available to you, maybe by capacity, or maybe by lack of wanting to reason by logic as we know it. The problem with using zero at end units, is that it makes us think it’s the beginning of another unit of ten, but it’s not! Non-numbers cannot be used with number-dependent math! (spiritual) (material) We are conditioned to believe in zero being a number. It is in the class of things we call numbers. In order to have value or to have a value, it must be proven to exist. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE BY ZERO. 61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,6X = 51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60 The existence of the “idea” matters, not on what we can “literally count as we see(or perceive) them.”. You can’t add, subtract, multiply, divide, take the exponent or power (or anything else) any numbers in order to yield infinity. Get the pattern? Granted my confession of ignorance, my initial response would be to say that this is just an example of useful fictions. Infinity is not defined as a number because there are no operators (save for limits, which relinquishes the definition of numbers) that can take us there. Zero is not prime, since it has more than 2 divisors. Since zero has no value, it is not a number. As an abstraction, zero is a useful descriptor for “none”. I understand that you are asking ontological questions. Zero may be a “number” only in the same way “infinity” is a number–a tool that works in certain ways, with certain limits that don’t apply to “ordinary numbers” (including such “ordinary” numbers as imaginary and transcendental numbers). No? And if nothing else, mathematicians are a very pragmatic bunch. Your own comment seems to me, says that 0 HAS value….. “…..to hold the ones spot and make a number larger”.
Tea Tree Hair And Scalp Treatment Benefits, How To Pronounce Drogon From Game Of Thrones, Flight To Proserpine, Spider-man: Miles Morales Suits, Yes Bank Full Form, Black Gas Airsoft, Alberta Parks Backcountry Reservations, Ann Reinking All That Jazz, Heidi Lou Parton Weight, Kait Parker Facebook,
Recent Comments