/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10227344]

> Zero isn't a number

[Anonymous No.10227385]

Zero is the absence of a value. I don't agree, but that's how the rules go.

It honestly pissed me off when I saw a congressional vote, and when they didn't have a vote for a yay/nay vs party (2x2 grid) they left it BLANK instead of PUTTING A FUCKING) ZERO

TEN THOUSANDS YEARS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND WE STILL HAVE THIS SHIT

[Anonymous No.10227438]

>>10227385
{ }

How does this make you feel?

[Anonymous No.10227844]

>>10227438
Stop Patrick, you're scaring him!

[Anonymous No.10227853]

>>10227344
Nope, it's a constant.

[Anonymous No.10227858]

>>10227344
> implying Euclid of Alexandria is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.10227865]

>>10227344
Hes right, how most people see numbers is in fact, Satanic, representative of the Kali Yuga age (Hinduism), wheras we are now returning to the true (Atlantean) number system, and yes, zero is a number. Everything starts and ends with 0.

Always remember - the Mystery of 9

[Anonymous No.10227988]

A more important question...

Is 0 a natural number?

[Anonymous No.10227989]

>>10227988
You have 4 cows, you give 4 cows away, how many cows do you have?

[Anonymous No.10227991]

>>10227989
That question doesn't make sense, you don't have any cows at all. It's unnatural to say "I have cows!" "How many?" "Zero!"

[Anonymous No.10227992]

>>10227344
GTFO redditard

[Anonymous No.10227995]

>>10227991
For each cow you sell, you get 30 gold
Money = CowsSold * 30
If you have zero cows, you get zero money

[Anonymous No.10228000]

>>10227995
Yeah but you can't "have" or "get" nothing. The words imply that something is gotten or had. You can only "not have" a cow and "not get" money.
0 is an abstraction to represent this, so it is artificial and unnatural. Like fractions.

[Anonymous No.10228002]

>>10227995
If you had no cows, it would make no sense to think about how much money you would make selling "them".

[Anonymous No.10228011]

>>10227991
you are in a state of having 0 of everything, until you get whatever element

you are possession of {}

[Anonymous No.10228068]

>>10228011
>>10228011
That's not how 'have" is defined.
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/have
you can't "have" nothing because nothing is not an object that you can own or possess. It is simply a shorthand for saying "i do not have anything."

[Anonymous No.10228158]

>>10227988
Yes, mainly for two reasons:

1. It’s the cardinality of the empty set. It’s unnatural to say that natural numbers are precisely the cardinalities of finite sets EXCEPT for this one special case of the empty set.

2. It’s the additive identity for Pete’s sake. Why would you go for a semigroup when you can have a monoid? The latter’s more natural.

[Anonymous No.10228284]

>>10228068
you need to read a bit more phisolophy, brainlet

[Anonymous No.10228293]

sequences sets or single values that are zero can effect others in a way that it is something that exists
0 exists
deal with it

[Anonymous No.10228549]

>0 is a positive number

[Anonymous No.10228554]

>>10227989
4

[Anonymous No.10228880]

>>10227991
>I-it's not true because it's not a common phrase
It's a fucking hypothetical scenario you autist
Having no cows is equivalent to having zero cows.

[Anonymous No.10228888]

>>10227438
delet

[Anonymous No.10228891]

>>10228880
Yes, but making that equality is unnatural because in human language we cannot both do "verb" and "not verb" at the same fucking time. So regardless of whether "I don't have cows, I have 0 of them" is correct, it's still unnatural to say. Thus 0 is not a natural number.

[Anonymous No.10228896]

>>10228891
What about 0 dollars, saying no dollars is unnatural. Therefore no is not a number.