[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 90 KB, 853x1024, zeromessage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11350548 No.11350548 [Reply] [Original]

Define a "number".
With this definition, prove "zero" is a number.
You won't be able to, because "zero" isn't a number.

>> No.11350566

Don't you dare ignore this you mathematical weasels.

>> No.11350636
File: 365 KB, 1480x832, same guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11350636

Bump.

>> No.11350637

>>11350548
Numbers are a manmade concept used to describe the amount of things which also could be none, as described with 0.

>> No.11350640

>>11350548
a number is something that exists between other numbers
0 is between an infinitesimal and its negative counterpart

>> No.11350645

>>11350637
>the amount of things
>which also could be none
Zero can't be an "amount". An amount can't BE zero, it can only be a quantity.

>> No.11350647

>>11350645
Numbers are a manmade concept used to describe the quantity of things which also could be none, as described with 0.

>> No.11350648

>>11350548
>Define a "number"
number: that which is zero. By this definition zero is a number. Get fucked, OP.

>> No.11350649

>>11350640
>a number is something that exists between other numbers
Oh, I guess a decimal point is a number too, then?

>> No.11350655

If we are on a natural number framework I just use the Peano axioms.

Zero is that number whose successor is 1

>> No.11350661

>>11350647
Zero isn't describing a quantity, you mong. Zero has no quantity because it's not a number.

>> No.11350663

>>11350648
Nice circular reasoning, gay boy.

>> No.11350673

A number is a value that can be used to quantify things. Under this definition, 0 is a number, as it can be used to quantify OP's IQ.

>> No.11350674

ITT OP is an ancient Greek

>> No.11350675

>>11350661
Why not? I can have zero dollars.

>> No.11350678

>>11350655
>Zero is that number whose successor is 1
How can 1 be a successor to zero when zero doesn't have any value to be succeeded in the first place?

>> No.11350681

>>11350678
That's when the other axiom comes into place.

Zero is the only number that doesn't have a number that precedes it. QED motherfucker.

>> No.11350684

>>11350673
Zero has no value you 1IQ moron.

>> No.11350685

>>11350675
>I can have zero
show it to me

>>11350673
>A number is a value
So "no value" is a value?

>used to quantify things
Zero is not a quantity though.

>> No.11350687

>>11350675
>I can have zero dollars
No you can't you schizo. That is the opposite of "having".

>> No.11350696

>>11350681
>Zero is the only number that doesn't have a number that precedes it
So all numbers have a number that precedes it, apart from zero. Sorry, why does that make zero a number still? This very characteristic proves it is not a number.

>> No.11350752
File: 164 KB, 850x480, tumblr_inline_pe4ta8y3zq1sejrrf_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11350752

>>11350696
Zero is the place from which we start to construct the natural numbers and also where we end.

>> No.11350761

>>11350548

>Define number
An imaginary man-made concept relating to units, the absence of which is represented symbolically as 0

There, proven

>Does it exist? It is above absence
>Does it not exist? It is lacking, absence. 0

>> No.11350763

>>11350752
>Zero is the place from which we start to construct the natural numbers and also where we end.
That doesn't make it a number.

Funny how Peano's first axiom in that list is "zero is a number" - nice circular reasoning, Peano (more like Pea-brain). For a number to be a number, the number must have a successor which is a different number, and a predecessor which is a different number. Zero doesn't meet both conditions as it doesn't have a predecessor, therefore it's not a number, therefore it logically follows it doesn't/can't have a successor either.

Zero is not a number.

>> No.11350766

>>11350761
The absence of a number, is a number?

>> No.11350773

>>11350766


Yes, it is a number that symbolically indicates the lack or absence imaginary numbers. The same way the word ''Nothing'' it is used to refer to the absence of more words in a given context, despite ''Nothing'' being a word itself.

Is an imaginary number a number?

>> No.11350790

>>11350773
>Yes, it is a number that symbolically indicates the lack or absence imaginary numbers
Explain how that makes it a number with logical coherency.
>The same way the word ''Nothing'' it is used to refer to the absence of more words in a given context, despite ''Nothing'' being a word itself.
Is "nothing" a number?
>Is an imaginary number a number?
If they were, they wouldn't be called "imaginary".

>> No.11350825

Do you see how easily philosophy destroys the fundamentals of modern mathematics? Don't cry too much though, you faggots now have the opportunity to construct a much more logically coherent mathematics.

>> No.11350832

>>11350790
>If they were, they wouldn't be called "imaginary".

Incorrect, cause all numbers are imaginary. Calling something already imaginary, imaginary again does not make it suddenly real.

>>11350790
>Explain how that makes it a number with logical coherency.

I already have, logic does not exist on its own but in frames of reference with clearly defined structures. The structure here is that there exist such a thing as numbers (all of which are imaginary) and Zero, is used inside of this system to represent a lack of such numbers. That is as logical as it needs to be to work in my system, and questioning it any further won't stop it from actually working and performing the function I specified it to.

>Is "nothing" a number?
No, its a word

>> No.11350835

>>11350825

It doesn't, you are just playing a semantics game while ignoring the fact that whether or not you refer to zero as a number or just a mere symbol used to represent a lack of numbers the system still works good enough to give you the platform you are using to spout this quasi Jewish non sense.

>> No.11350838

Zero is the number of times OP has had sex

>> No.11350857

>>11350825
Yes, it is a number that symbolically indicates the lack or absence imaginary numbers.

>if no number then number

To represent what? "No quantity"? Well if it represents "no quantity" then it has no business being discussed in the realm of mathematics. If 0 is indeed a number then math can literally never prove it to be true because math is the language of quantification. You're telling me you can quantify no quantity?

>The same way the word ''Nothing'' it is used to refer to the absence of more words in a given context, despite ''Nothing'' being a word itself.

No it refers to absence in general. "Not a thing" or the absence of what we conventionally experience as phenomenal. Despite "nothing" being a word, it's still a word that literally doesn't refer to anything specific. Sort of like how 0 doesn't refer to any number. Literally the "absence of number". A placeholder for number.

>B-but an absence can be present

>> No.11350860

>>11350857
meant to quote
>>11350773

>> No.11350867

>>11350832
>Incorrect, cause all numbers are imaginary. Calling something already imaginary, imaginary again does not make it suddenly real.
So why are there numbers called "real numbers". Yes, all numbers are imaginary, but imaginary concepts can still be logical. Are " real numbers" at least considered more logical, or more grounded in reality?
>The structure here is that there exist such a thing as numbers (all of which are imaginary) and Zero, is used inside of this system to represent a lack of such numbers. That is as logical as it needs to be to work in my system, and questioning it any further won't stop it from actually working and performing the function I specified it to.
No sorry, zero exists/operates under different logic to the other numbers, but you ignore this by calling them all numbers regardless. By ignoring this, you won't gain a deeper understanding of what is actually going on.

>> No.11350883

>>11350835
If it doesn't matter whether zero is referred to as a number or not, then why did Peano go through the effort of trying to prove it is a number with his axioms?

>spout this quasi Jewish non sense.
Erm, Jews think zero is a number as well, you're on their side, not me

>> No.11350888

>>11350838
You can only acquire my genius through celibacy, you degenerate.

>> No.11350919

>>11350661
>I have 0 oranges
>wrong, you can't have no oranges, retard

>> No.11350926

>>11350548
all quantities are arbitrary, what is your point

>> No.11350936

>>11350548
A number is a mathematical identifer used to count, measure, and label

>> No.11350945

>>11350919
Using zero like that doesn't make it a number, imbecile. If you say you have no oranges, does that make the word "no" a number?

>> No.11350949

>>11350926
Zero isn't a quantity, arbitrary or not. Zero is neutral infinity.

>> No.11350953

>it's not rape, no is just an absence of yes

>> No.11350954

>>11350945
>semantics troll calling others retards and mongs

>> No.11350958

>>11350936
Does a number need to do all three of those things to qualify as a number?

>> No.11350961

>>11350945
If you say you have two oranges, does that make the word two a number?

>> No.11350964

>>11350953
What brainlet?

>> No.11350973

Why are you answering this faggot?

>> No.11350975

>>11350954
Mathematics uses semantics, so get the semantics right otherwise it's retarded.

>> No.11350983

>>11350961
Two is a number, correct! Gold star!

>> No.11350991

>>11350649
Incredibly based.

>>11350645
But, anon, surely you have heard the phrase "amount to nothing" before?

>> No.11350993

>>11350973
Faggot

>> No.11351002

>>11350991
>But, anon, surely you have heard the phrase "amount to nothing" before?
Yes, it's an illogical phrase mathematically/logically, but phrases don't need to be perfectly logical to still make sense

>> No.11351021

>>11350548
>what is ZF
Ha ha. OP is probably underaged.

>> No.11351034

I swear this post is making me cringe.
Why don't you accept Peano's axioms and shut up? That's a coherent enough definition. You don't need any further explanation or definition like "numbers are for counting" else we'd get in an infinite loophole of derivative definitions with no starting/ending point.

>> No.11351037

>>11351021
Go on whore, make your case with your schizo set theory.

>> No.11351045

>>11351034
>Why don't you accept Peano's axioms and shut up?
Because Pea-brain's axioms are retarded. They completely ignore certain properties of the numbers to make zero seem as similar as possible to the other numbers, but he still gives zero a property that no other number has while pretending they're all just numbers. How about having some logically consistent axioms instead?

>> No.11351050

>>11351045
OK then, let's say that zero is not a number. Every number is the successor of another number, except one, which isn't a successor to any number. So, by your reasoning, one is not a number since it has a property all the other numbers don't have. Faggot

>> No.11351056

>>11351050
Well done brainlet, now you're starting to use your brain. That is why Pea-brain settled for his shitty axioms.

>> No.11351061

>>11351045
>They completely ignore certain properties of the numbers to make zero seem as similar as possible to the other numbers

like what?

>> No.11351074

>>11351056
Or maybe it is not necessary that something is the successor of a number to be considered a number?

>> No.11351084

>>11351061
By ignoring the fact that all numbers also have a number previous to it, apart from zero. Pea-brain hides this as best he can by not using the word previous, instead saying zero isn't the successor of any number. Let's not also forget zero's inability to change the value of another number.

>> No.11351091

>>11351074
Or maybe the concept of "numbers" is retarded and illogical, and can only work as they do due to a retarded and illogical concept of zero?

>> No.11351104
File: 4 KB, 296x199, Line-Drawing-Wittgenstein-in-Heritage-1984-p-87.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11351104

Numbers are representations of either invented or discovered concepts that express a measurement of either abstract or actual objects. If so what, then, are the objects of mathematics? Generally.

Also, if you go too far into defining words, you end up playing language game solitaire (pic related). You must design a model before proceeding.

>> No.11351109

>>11351084
Dude axioms have to be as barebones as possible. The fact that zero is special is true and easy to find out even by starting from Peano's axioms; I mean, even just the definition of the "successor" highlights zero's peculiarity.
But you are trying to imply that the definition of number requires the number to have a previous. But it is not stated in Peano's axioms, hence they are not inconsistent.
Also in general if you are trying to describe the natural numbers you will need to have a "first number", be it 1 or 0, that will have no previous, like >>11351050 said.

>Let's not also forget zero's inability to change the value of another number.
Basically translates to "Neutral elements don't make sense". So basically group theory, field theory and all the likes make no sense? Then 1 should not exist either because it's neutral for the product.
Ok go on and make your own mathematics from scratch then.

>> No.11351110

>>11351104
What measurement does zero express, you hog?

>> No.11351112

>>11351084
>Let's not also forget zero's inability to change the value of another number
>x*0=0
Whoa

>> No.11351113

>>11351104
>Also, if you go too far into defining words, you end up playing language game solitaire (pic related). You must design a model before proceeding.

That's the biggest problem in this thread

>> No.11351117

>>11351091
In maths definitions don't have to be "logical" the way you mean. You can define literally anything any way you want. It doesn't need to have practical meaning or "sense".

>> No.11351122

>>11351109
>>11351109
>Dude axioms have to be as barebones as possible
Nope, that's gay. It also allows for cherry picking to create illogical bullshit.
>The fact that zero is special is true and easy to find out even by starting from Peano's axioms
Yet Pea-brain still calls zero a number without a care in the world.
>But you are trying to imply that the definition of number requires the number to have a previous. But it is not stated in Peano's axioms, hence they are not inconsistent.
It's not stated because he's a pussy.
>Also in general if you are trying to describe the natural numbers you will need to have a "first number", be it 1 or 0, that will have no previous
Yes, which is retarded, the concept of numbers needs to change.
>Ok go on and make your own mathematics from scratch then.
I will bitch

>> No.11351125

>>11351112
All other numbers can, bird brain.

>> No.11351126

>>11351125
>make a claim
>get proven wrong
>I-I was just kidding anyway!

>> No.11351127

>>11351117
No wonder it's full of so much schizo shit, then. Nothing to be proud of. GET BETTER.

>> No.11351128

>>11351126
How did you prove me wrong, bird brain?

>> No.11351129

>>11351122
Though it's obvious that you're a troll I find amusing to go on with this conversation. So...

>Nope, that's gay. It also allows for cherry picking to create illogical bullshit.
Your definition of illogical is quite vague I guess. I think you are trying to appeal to "common sense" rather than logic

>Yet Pea-brain still calls zero a number without a care in the world.
You have 49 apples and a banana. The banana is clearly different from the apples but both the banana and apples are fruits. No?

>Yes, which is retarded, the concept of numbers needs to change
Well I kinda assumed we were talking about natural numbers. But there are many other ways to think about numbers. Like integers (where zero has a previous), rationals and real numbers (where there is no "previous"). Also some slightly weirder ones like Zp (or Z/pZ or whatever you call the Z group "quotientated" over the group of the multiples of p)

>> No.11351134

>>11351128
>buird brain xddd
I proved you wrong because you said that 0 cant change other numbers, but multiplicating by 0 equals 0 you stuipid nigger. Get cancer you fucking faggot.

>> No.11351148

>>11351129
>Your definition of illogical is quite vague I guess. I think you are trying to appeal to "common sense" rather than logic
Nope, appealing to formal logic, the same used in metaphysics which created mathematics in the first place.
>You have 49 apples and a banana. The banana is clearly different from the apples but both the banana and apples are fruits. No?
Not the same at all. You might as well say infinity is pretty different to 1, but they're both numbers, right?
>Like integers (where zero has a previous)
Zero will always be completely unique no matter what retarded thing they do to numbers, because zero can never be a number, it's different.

>> No.11351155

>>11351134
How is going going from 0 to 0 changing anything you utter spastic? Have you got fucking brain damage?

>> No.11351169

>>11351148
>Nope, appealing to formal logic, the same used in metaphysics which created mathematics in the first place.
Debatable. And what would be a metaphysically coherent model? Please make an example of a mathematical model that works for you

>Zero will always be completely unique no matter what retarded thing they do to numbers, because zero can never be a number, it's different.
So answer this: is one a number? Why is it/ why is it not?

>You might as well say infinity is pretty different to 1, but they're both numbers, right?
Depending on what structure we are working on, infinity may or may not be considered a number. So, implying we are working on a set such as "real number with also inf and -inf", yes, they are both numbers.
They do have different properties but they have one propery in common: they are numbers.
Else you could say 1 and 2 too different to both be numbers because x*1=x while x*2=something else, or because x+1 is the successive to x, while x+2 is not

>> No.11351206

>>11351169
>Debatable. And what would be a metaphysically coherent model? Please make an example of a mathematical model that works for you
Mathematics is constantly trying to separate itself. Trying to make numbers into finite quantities that go in sequence with a beginning and possible end. I believe numbers have the illusion of separateness created by neutral, positive and negative infinity together.
>So answer this: is one a number? Why is it/ why is it not?
Just another representation of infinity.
>Depending on what structure we are working on, infinity may or may not be considered a number. So, implying we are working on a set such as "real number with also inf and -inf", yes, they are both numbers.
Nope, positive and negative infinity aren't separate, along with neutral infinity, so not only are they not separate, they are what create "numbers", which don't really exist.

>> No.11351207

Imagine a line. Now set a point on it to equal zero. Now any number(including zero) is the distance from the zero either to the left or right.

>> No.11351224

>>11351206
I'm trying to follow you but I'm not too sure of what you want to express. I think we are trying to use two different definition systems: mathematical definitions versus metaphysical stuff. I was just arguing that mathematically speaking zero is (or "can be") a number. I think you might be right in some way but you are treating the subject from a different point of view. I think it's kinda weird to say that how we conceive maths is wrong from metaphysical prospective but also stating that math is part of metaphysics.
Also no, math doesn't necessarely try to make numbers finite and separated. Natural nambers are that way but real numbers are dense and infinite in both directions.

>I believe numbers have the illusion of separateness created by neutral, positive and negative infinity together.
I don't really get what you are talking about. Is this part of a renown metaphysical theory or some stuff you formulated on your own?

>> No.11351234

>>11351207
Impossible for two separate things to be zero distance from each other. Zero is not a distance

>> No.11351241

>>11351234
Uh it is? When two objects touch they're at zero distance

>> No.11351246

>>11351224
There's no difference between mathematics and metaphysics apart from mathematics is trying to do things its not equipped to do because it doesn't realise it is metaphysics, instead its just winging it and not being able use formal logic to keep things consistent.
>I don't really get what you are talking about. Is this part of a renown metaphysical theory or some stuff you formulated on your own?
It comes from a metaphysical understanding of infinity - applying it in such a way to mathematics is my own work. Seeing numbers in such a way has logical cohesion, and can explain the odd nature of zero.

>> No.11351249

>>11351241
>When two objects touch they're at zero distance
No they're not, there's still distance

>> No.11351268

>>11351246
I can't tell if you are saying completely random stuff or I'm not getting it

>There's no difference between mathematics and metaphysics apart from mathematics is trying to do things its not equipped to do because it doesn't realise it is metaphysics
Says who? It really looks like you are making your own weird idea of what maths is and implying for some reasons it's true. Also you speak of formal logic but I haven't seen any formally logical statement from you

>> No.11351331

>>11351249
You are thinking physically. You are too low IQ to understand anything abstract. I advise you to stay with physics.

>> No.11351555

>>11350685
>show it to me

>

>> No.11351874

>>11350548
okay you dumb piece of shit, I'm gonna define natural numbers the autistic way and you're going to fucking agree with me, you faggo

>be the empty set {}
>define the empty set as 0
>be the set {{}}
>{} ∈ {{}}
>identify this previous set-theoretic notation with the notation 0 < 1
>define the set {{},{{}}}
>{} ∈ {{},{{}}} and {{}} ∈ {{},{{}}}
>identify these previous set-theoretic notations with 0 < 1 and 0 < 2
>and so on

Okay, faggot, you can still disagree with this construction, you can call me an autistic asshole or whatever you want, but the fact is, 0 is a number, because a number is a construction that can be whatever the fuck I want. And your pseudo-intellectual "philosophical" (which are, by the way, not at all philosophical) remarks about "having 0 apples is NOT having any apples, I'm so fucking smart" are retarded as fucking hell.

>> No.11351897

>>11351874
also (same anon here), this definition of 0 is actually convenient from an arithmetic point of view, as it satisfies that 0 is the "neutral element of the sum", that is to say, any number n + 0 = n. Want me to prove it to you? Okay, let's identify the operation "sum" with the operation "union of sets". Then

n + 0 = {{},{{}},{{{}}},... (so on, n times)} U {} = {{},{{}},{{{}}}, ... (so on, n times)} = n

There you go you faggot piece of shit. And yeah I know I'm swearing too much but you're retarded as shit and you don't see me complain about it, do you?

>> No.11351930

>>11350548
What is the definition of zero then?
Protip : you failed basic logic

>> No.11351949
File: 144 KB, 340x340, kyoko bugada.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11351949

>>11350763 (You)
>For a number to be a number, the number must have a successor which is a different number, and a predecessor which is a different number. Zero doesn't meet both conditions as it doesn't have a predecessor, therefore it's not a number, therefore it logically follows it doesn't/can't have a successor either.
According to whom?

>> No.11351965

>>11350763
you fucking retarded piece of shit, I didn't read this before but now that I read it I want to kill you even more. By definition, ALL definitions end up being circular reasonings. Don't like that? Well, go fuck yourself, because you can't escape it. Nobody can. Fuck you.

>> No.11351970

>>11350548
A number is any element of an ordered field.
The field axioms state that there exists and element written 0 such that if x is in a field then x + 0 = x.
As the axioms clearly state that 0 is an element of a field then 0 is a number, same goes for 1.

>> No.11351975

Why are you guys even trying to reason with this retard?

>> No.11352005

>>11351037
Take the set that contains all sets created by combining empty sets (à la ZF). All subsets of this set represent a number, including zero.

>> No.11352067

>>11350548
number: that which my 5-year-old niece calls a number is a number.

>> No.11352110

>>11350548
God it feels good to be a Neo-Pythagorean.

>> No.11352143

>>11350548
>0 is not a number
all numbers are just counts, anon.
you see one frog, it is counted as one. there is no number "one" , it is just the bounds encompassing the frog.
you see another frog, you count them together as 2 frogs.
if the 2 frogs jump away and disappear, there is nothing to count, so there are now 0 frogs, because that is where the count begins.
if there are 5 frogs in a pond and 3 frogs outside the pond, you can count them as
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
or you can use the law of addition to speed up your count as
>1,2,3,4,5 : 5 in the pond +
>1,2,3: 3 not in the pond
>=5+3=8

This addition rules all numbers, and from addition you get subtraction, where you "uncount". All uncounting ends in zero whereas all counting may be infinite or finite depending on how many frogs exist in the universe.

therefore, zero is a perfect number

>> No.11352152

>>11350548
I saw this thread yesterday when it had 5 replies (2 of which were OP's bumbs, of course). I considered replying with a serious reply or a troll reply, but then decided not to reply at all, because it's retarded and isn't worth it. Now I come back and it has 90 replies. You retards need to fuck off back to /x/. The answer to OP is so simple.
>zero isn't a number
>burden of proof
>therefore OP is compelled to give formal, rigorous proof that under no definition of "number" can there exist a "number" having precisely zero's properties.
Fucking retards, the lot of you.

>> No.11352167

>>11352110
I also want to feel good, so I read the full wikipedia article titled Neopythagoreanism just to be sure that I'm not missing out. I suspect strongly that, indeed I am not missing out.
A spiritual and material dualism doesn't work in my metaphysics model. The universe is material, and I suspect that given some small adjustments to our current models, this notion of spirit as immaterial can be put to rest.
Something without the properties of being physical can not act upon that which does.
Where does the Luminiferous Aether come into play within the pythagorean belief system?

>> No.11352174

>>11352143
Based.
Op... the key fact that you seemed to have overlooked is that numbers do not exist the same way that the universe exists. They are only real inside your mind.

>> No.11352300

>>11351555
huh, that's still not a "zero". That is "not a thing".

>>11352174
Numbers represent the quantity of things that exist. If you are speaking of the existence of nothing, then representing it with something used to quantify is "of no use" because it is "not a thing to be represented". This is one of the reasons why when you "Divide by zero" you get an answer that is "undefined".

>> No.11352326

>>11352300
>Numbers represent the quantity of things that exist

Not really, no. You pulled that one out of your ass. If that's how you want to define number then go ahead but that's not have the reals are defined and the reals are much more useful than your set.

>> No.11352382

I'm still waiting for you to define your new Axioms OP we'll called them FAGO's axioms, i'm sure this will result it a revolution in mathematics like never before seen.

>> No.11352399

>>11352326
>Not really, no.
What do they represent? Whatever you want? Okay fine, but how do they represent what literally is not presentable?

>You pulled that one out of your ass
fair enough, but I mean you're still using these "numbers" to do real world things no?

>If that's how you want to define number then go ahead but that's not have the reals are defined and the reals are much more useful than your set.
If you insist on describing and defining all day then whatever, for descriptions and definitions change constantly in history. In a real world scenario you're not going to use the language of quantification to quantify "no quantity" very effectively. It's a placeholder for what you wish had a quantity there to be measured. Why? Because without quantity your language is completely useless. Math cannot define Zero without an axiom that contradicts itself or uses circular reasoning.

>> No.11352726

Pretty sure OP is just pretending to be retarded. At least i hope so.

>> No.11353169

>>11350548
I define number as the concept for which zero is one.
by the axiom of identity, zero is a number

>> No.11353869

>not realizing that nothing is still something
sad really.

>> No.11353902
File: 23 KB, 640x559, 1542769040356.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11353902

>>11353869
>It's sad that others don't commit equivocation fallacies
Well darn, now I have to be upset when my reasoning is coherent when I should have been arguing semantics.

>> No.11353914

>>11351975
yeah this. Don't really know why, just had some free time and decided to invest it in getting myself furious.

>> No.11354144

>>11350684
Exactly. Zero represents a value of a none. You can’t even argue without semantically betraying your own point.

>> No.11354153

>>11350945
>I HAVE A COUPLE ORANGES IS COUPLE A NUMBER
>I HAVE A FEW ORANGES IS FEW A NUMBER
>I HAVE SEVERAL ORANGES IS SEVERAL A NUMBER

>> No.11354158

>>11351110
>Tom Brady attempted to sneak across the goal line and got stuffed. The New England patriots gained “0” points on the drive and “0” yards on the play
Look I just did it twice, for both score and distance.

>> No.11354176

So if I wanted to count apples and there were no apples to count, could I tell how many apples there are?

>> No.11354196

10000 is a number. Seems like zero means something.

>> No.11354206

>>11350663
That isn't circular reasoning. He presented a definition of a number and proved that zero satisfies that definition. Circular reasoning is where you have a chain of implications A => B => A, but his definition of a number doesn't depend on any other assumption -- it's a definition, not a proposition -- so it CAN'T be circular.

>> No.11354208

>>11350983
If, by that logic, two is a number then, by the same logic, so is zero.

>> No.11354217

Entirely depends on your definition of numbers.
If you are working with N_0, Z or R, then 0 is a number without a doubt.
We are defining it to be a number, so it is a number. Any further discussion is ridiculous.

>>11352174
In the end our Universe itself is but a number.
The natural numbers are a superset of all possible universes.

>> No.11354475

>>11350645
an amount can be zero.

>> No.11354479

>>11350661
its quantity is zero and it's a number.

>> No.11354481

>>11350678
its value is zero.

>> No.11354482

>>11350684
its value is zero.

>> No.11354483

>>11350685
zero is a quantity.

>> No.11354485

>>11350687
you can have zero dollars.

>> No.11354489

>>11350763
it's a number.

>> No.11354491

>>11350825
you haven't proved anything. tantrums aren't proofs.

>> No.11354495

>>11350857
yes, you can quantify no quantity.

>> No.11354499

>>11350949
it's a quantity.

>> No.11354503

>>11351045
his axioms are correct.

>> No.11354506

>>11351091
neither retarded nor illogical.

>> No.11354518

>>11351125
as can zero.

>> No.11354520

>>11351127
it's fine as is.

>> No.11354522

>>11351155
you aren't going from zero to zero.

>> No.11354526

>>11351234
zero is a distance and two things can be at zero distance.

>> No.11354534

>>11352152
lol shut up nerd

>> No.11354546

>>11352399
peano's axioms aren't circular and don't contradict themselves.

>> No.11354615
File: 129 KB, 960x720, Godel’s+Incompleteness+Theorems.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11354615

>>11354546
how sure are you?

>> No.11354915

>>11352300
>>11354217
Numbers do not exist you fucking nigger.

>> No.11355105

>>11354615
100%.

>> No.11355239

>>11350548
[math]\forall x: x \in \mathbb{R} \Rightarrow x[/math] is a number.

Trivially [math]0 \in \mathbb{R}[/math], so 0 is a number.

>> No.11355245

>>11351874
ROFL OP BTFO

>> No.11355717

>>11354915
>REPRESENT the quantity of things that exist

Read my post proper next time though. Correct they don't exist. They represent what does exists. Zero represents what does not exist, which specifically makes it a a placeholder for a number. You can call it "number" by using the name, but it is not "of number" for it has no "thing" that it is quantifying.

>>11355105
>>11354546
As long as you keep assuming there are infinite sets then yeah, but that's just failing to acknowledge the dilemma that there are no infinite sets.

>>11354483
>zero is a quantity.
What is there that you are defining as a quantity? It's "undefinable" at best.

>>11354495
>yes, you can quantify no quantity.
Its undefined. What is it you're quantifying?

>> No.11356051

>>11355239
Are complex numbers not real numbers? (Real as in they exist, not the name of the set.)

>> No.11356128

I just found out that the only reason a positive number multiplied by a negative number is negative is because it has to be that way for the distributive law to work.

Really makes you understand how ad hoc and artificial math is.

>> No.11356403

>>11356051
[math]x \in \mathbb{R}[/math] is a sufficient condition ([math]\Rightarrow[/math]), not a necessary one ([math]\Leftarrow[/math]).
Strictly speaking I haven't defined what a number is, but I have stated what AT LEAST constitutes a number.
If you say the Reals are no numbers, then there is no point in even discussing this any further.

>> No.11356414

>>11350548
The number of women you've had sex with

>> No.11356420

>>11355717
infinite sets exist, zero is a quantity, you can quantify no quantity, stay mad

>> No.11356424

>>11356128
gee really? a completely abstract concept is artificial? WHO COULD HAVE EVER GUESSED

>> No.11356433

>>11351874
Doing God's work anon. Showing those philosophy undergrads that we mathematicians can actually get shit done unlike the total academic failures they are.

>> No.11356447

>>11356433
cringe

>> No.11356475

>>11350867
>zero exists/operates under different logic to the other numbers
prove that statement

>> No.11356513

>>11356420
>you can quantify no quantity, stay mad

How can I even get mad at such an absurd contradictory statement. It's hilarious in an oxymoronic manner.

>> No.11356546

>>11351874
>define empty set as zero
You fucking dumb piece of shit just proved OP correct.

>> No.11356549

>>11356475
a/b = ?
b/a = ?
With b = 0 vs b != 0.

>> No.11356937

>>11350867
>zero exists/operates under different logic to the other numbers
It's a special number, since it's usually the unique neutral element for addition.
The rules are the same as for any other number, though.
That you cannot use it as a divisor (>>11356549) is the natural result of it being the neutral element for addition.
It's no "different logic".

>> No.11356942

>>11356128
Other than that, how’s by 6th grade treating you so far buddy?

>> No.11357531

>>11356937
It's different than for 5.

>> No.11357566

Suppose 0 does not exist.. Then integers are not a group....but it is.....q.e.d...

>> No.11357614

>>11350883
Two things, pal. First you need to be above 18 to be here, and secondly you need to get back.

>> No.11357623

>>11355717
>They represent what does exists

The number of atoms in the universe is known. Think about the number say 1000 bigger than that. That number doesn't represent anything in the real world. Is it not a number? What is it then?

>> No.11357625
File: 67 KB, 497x427, Fagottville.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11357625

>>11350548
>Define a "number".
op's IQ
>With this definition, prove "zero" is a number.
this thread

nigger

>> No.11357760

>>11350645
"How many apples do you have"
"I have none(0)"

>> No.11357763

>>11357531
>[math]0 \neq 5[/math]
You don't say!

>> No.11357777

>>11350548
Why is zero not a number?

>> No.11357792

>>11356128
Math is just the study of systems with rules, yeah the rules are arbitrary you brainlet

>> No.11357830

>>11357623
>The number of atoms in the universe is known. Think about the number say 1000 bigger than that
okay, but this assumes that numbers can only be used to count atoms and that an "atom" is the standard of a whole number.
>That number doesn't represent anything in the real world.
yet, but it could. Atoms are created and recreated constantly. Ultimately everything is hydrogen so once the heavier elements decompose into that, you'll effectively have more discrete atoms to count. Now your bigger number can actually represent something, it always COULD have represented something.

>Is it not a number? What is it then?
It is a number. It COULD represent *something* that could exist. Despite it having no meaning, it has potential meaning. It is yet to be realized. What could zero represent? How does "Zero" have potential to be realized? It is the absence of quantity. It is unquantifiable, not a definable. It literally has no potential to represent what exists or could exist at later date. Yet we put "0" as a placeholder representing it. Why represent what could not be represented?

>> No.11357865

>>11350857
>>>/x

>> No.11357887

>>11357623
>The number of atoms in the OBSERVABLE universe is ROUGHLY known.
FTFY

We don't even know the number of atoms in the primary kilogram.
Ultimately any number exists either because we say so directly or indirectly.
Was OP trying to make people prove that 0 is in the natural numbers?
Entirely depends on you. You can define them either way, and things work out.

>> No.11357894

>>11357763
Idiot, learn to read.

>> No.11357903

>>11350857
then is the empty set is not a set?

>> No.11357909

>>11357903
Obviously it is a set, but what about the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves?

>> No.11357931

>>11357830

That's exactly right, it's the abscence of quanitty. Very clear and sound definition.

What do you suppose someone does if asked the question "How many cinabuns do you have anon?" Go into a fit and yell "UNDEFINED, UNDEFINED"?

>> No.11357939

>>11357909
>To represent what? "No quantity"? Well if it represents "no quantity" then it has no business being discussed in the realm of mathematics

For empty set:
To represent what? "No elements"? Well if it represents "no elements" then it has no business being discussed in the realm of mathematics

>> No.11357992 [DELETED] 

>>11350548
number: (dick length)/(unit of length)
zero: (your dick length)/(unit of length)

>> No.11358220

>>11357931
>That's exactly right, it's the abscence of quanitty. Very clear and sound definition.

So it's not a number then.

>What do you suppose someone does if asked the question "How many cinabuns do you have anon?"

"I need cinabuns"
"I have none"
There are dozens of ways to clarify that you have no cinabuns that don't require mentioning . In fact now what I think about it, what sperg on earth would actually reply to that statement proclaiming "zero" at all
"I have zero cinabuns"
"I need non-zero cinabuns"
"I have zero"

>Go into a fit and yell "UNDEFINED, UNDEFINED"?
I would if I didn't know what the fuck a cinabun was. Then you would have to define it for me. Otherwise how would I know what you're taking about? It's undefined.

>> No.11358264
File: 27 KB, 333x499, 518rmZqMRgL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11358264

First chapter and he's already comparing zero to Satan.

>> No.11359426

>>11350548
>"zero" isn't a number.
Yes I tired to explain this on this before but in typical /sci/ MO everyone here was too stupid and ignorant to understand it

https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/11194774/#q11196623

>> No.11359454

>>11350857
>if it represents "no quantity" then it has no business being discussed in the realm of mathematics
Why not?
>f 0 is indeed a number then math can literally never prove it to be true because math is the language of quantification.
Maths is the language of logic, and I can use logic to describe the number zero.

>> No.11359462

>>11350883
>prove it is a number with his axioms

>> No.11359466

>>11350678
The value of zero is zero just like "any other number" is "any other number".
Furthermore, zero isn't null.

>> No.11359470
File: 12 KB, 300x259, bushfag.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11359470

>>11359466
a symbol representing the absense of value is a value

>> No.11359483

>>11350548
> Define a "number".
Okay:

1. 0 is a natural number.
2. For every natural number x, x = x. That is, equality is reflexive.
3. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. That is, equality is symmetric.
4. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. That is, equality is transitive.
5. For all a and b, if b is a natural number and a = b, then a is also a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under equality.
6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number. That is, the natural numbers are closed under successor S.
7. For all natural numbers m and n, m = n if and only if S(m) = S(n). That is, S is an injection.
8. For every natural number n, S(n) = 0 is false. That is, there is no natural number whose successor is 0.
> With this definition, prove "zero" is a number.

The proof is Axiom 1.

> You won't be able to, because "zero" isn't a number.

I did not understand this jumbled up garbage at the end of your post.

>> No.11359517

>>11357939
Who are you quoting?

>> No.11359523

>>11350548
as an abstract concept, it's the ordinal [math]\emptyset[/math].

>> No.11359538

>>11350548
>Literally arguing whether or not zero is a number.
Best argument for a second Holocaust. This time, instead of Jews, we burn all the mathematical retards.

>> No.11359542

>>11359538
Surely some of the jews were mathies, and so it wasn't a total failure from the OP's point of view.

>> No.11359548

>>11359538
define number

>> No.11359551

>>11359548
an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification.

>> No.11359560

>>11359551
You think a symbol that represents absence of value(absence of value is impossible in this reality as the prima materia (building blocks for you brainlets) can neither be created nor destroyed) is a number then?

>> No.11359566

>>11359548
Retard, that's not how this works. You need to provide the definition and then show that zero does not meet the requirements. That's because the burden of proof is on you/OP. Either prove your claim, or fuck off.

>> No.11359572

>>11359560
yes

>> No.11359585

>>11359454
>Why not?
Math cannot be used to discuss that which has no quantity. Why would you count nothing?
>Maths is the language of logic,
In part yes. It is the language of quantifying (counting) and measuring as well which CAN be used logically
>and I can use logic to describe the number zero.
You cannot describe or explain what has no substance there to be described or explained (what is it that you're counting/explaining?). Unless you insist that you're speaking about nothing or you invent the subject you speak of, which is not logical whatsoever. Or you speak of describing nothingness itself, which is even more illogical.
"Things" are "of number", for they can be counted. Non existence is not "of number", there is "not a thing" to be counted nor really a means of accurately representing it.

>> No.11359590

>Math cannot be used to discuss that which has no quantity.
we might as well throw out everything to do with infinity too, as it's the dual concept of nothingness and by this logic is equally as inaccessible.

>> No.11359595

>>11359590
>infinity
Contrary to 0, [math]\infty[/math] is indeed not a number.

>> No.11359596

>>11359566
I am not OP you stupid fucking nigger

>>11359572
you are silly then anon I answered all this in detail in a previous bread
https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/11194774/#q11196623

>> No.11359599

>>11359590
>we might as well throw out everything to do with infinity too

brainlet take, infinity is what proves there is no zero value, something that is infinite cannot have a zero value

>> No.11359600

think i lost IQ entering this thread.

>> No.11359605

>this thread
mathematicians everybody.

>> No.11359607

>>11359605
high schoolers you mean.

>> No.11359608

>>11350548
A number is the thing I use to quantify the size of my peepee when it isnt appropriate to show it.

>> No.11359944
File: 2.84 MB, 640x474, tiresome.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11359944

>>11359590
>we might as well throw out everything to do with infinity too
Infinity is not a number, it is greater than assignable quantity. It cannot be quantified and has no standard of measure. So yes, there must also be a "greater language" to discuss than the one used specifically for quantifying. The alternative is to continue quantifying that which is not a quantity, which is fruitless. Use "0" as a placeholder if you must, but don't call it a number. It can't even do what number does; count things. It "non-counts what isn't there", which is the most rubbish, useless, illogical thing you could ever use.

>>11359599
>infinity is what proves there is no zero value, something that is infinite cannot have a zero value

Something that is infinite cannot have value whatsoever for it is not number. It is unquantifiable and has no bound to be limited by "A number" for it cannot end. There is no proof in the first place for zero having a value other than it being defined here and there, warped around meanings to what classifies as a number. Which is fine given that numbers and math is imaginary in the first place, but the fact still remains that there's this giant elephant in the room that's being used solely as a placeholder and doesn't actually represent anything taking place in reality. There is no "0" of something. It "is" or "is not" and if it "is not" then don't define it *as* zero, let alone define it at all. It's that simple.

>>11359605
It's the "what-is-a-black hole-to-physicists" equivalent. Out of the woodwork they will all come, all insisting that we talking about nothing.

>> No.11359961

>>11350548
number
/ˈnʌmbə/
noun
noun: number; plural noun: numbers

1.
an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations.


Here. Defined it there for ya.


Zero is the symbol for the amount of money you've received in payment last month from the Jew Lizard People government, for pretending Australia is real on the Internet.

>> No.11360173

>>11350681
I subtract -1 point for this post

>> No.11360202

>>11355239
i’m reading the whole thread, this took too long

>> No.11360203

>>11350548
>Define a "number".
Represents exact amounts
>With this definition, prove "zero" is a number.
Zero is an exact amount

>> No.11360439

>>11356549
wheels bro, keep on rollin'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

>> No.11360555

>>11350548
a number is a symbol associated with any given list based on the list's ability to match with other lists on an object per object basis. so (i i i i i) and (o o o o o) have the same number, and that symbol can be called 5 or five. this can be extended with lists denoting lack of matching, thus giving relationships between numbers such as 3+2 is 5 for (i i i) and (o o o o o) matching a partial list and having an (i I) list of lack of matching. empty lists match with eachother, () matches with (). so that symbol can be called anything, such as 0 or zero. and it fits in with the rest of the system of addition and subtraction aka number relating

>> No.11360824

>>11359596
I didn't say you were, illiterate retard.

>> No.11360828

>>11350548
If a box has 5 apples in it, and then 5 apples are removed, how many apples are in the box? Grade schoolers can obviously answer this, but I want to know how "zero's not a number" retards answer it.