[ 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: 131 KB, 400x364, smirk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2510166 No.2510166 [Reply] [Original]

Is 0 both odd and even?

>> No.2510171

no

>> No.2510170

>>2510166
it is even.
0 mod 2 = 0

>> No.2510174

Neither condition applies.

>> No.2510177

Derp

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

>> No.2510179

You get an integer if you divide by 2, so it's even.

>> No.2510181

You can't have an odd number following an odd number and 1 follows 0 so it must be even.

>> No.2510183

so it wouldn't be even, and then also odd?

>> No.2510185

>>2510174
>>2510171
confirmed for idiot

>> No.2510186

>>2510183
It's even. Not odd.

>> No.2510189

>>2510183

No. unless you want to invent your own mathematics that accommodates the zero as an odd?

>> No.2510194

>>2510186
So it wouldn't by chance be odd, and then, even?

>> No.2510196

all even numbers are divisible by two iteratively until the operation returns one with a remainder of zero.

thus zero is neither even or odd, but merely an arithmetical bookkeeping function.

mathfags hate this because they use recursive definitions to say that zero is even.

"hurr durr there are only two classes of numbers, even and odds. if it's not in one set, it must be in the other. herp by proof of derp."

empty set is not a number, no matter what they say.

>> No.2510203

>>2510194
No. It wouldn't.

>> No.2510214

>>2510203
we can also say that it is odd as in queer, or fucking strange so to speak not behaving like any other integer.

divide by zero is undefined. only integer that acts that way. included as an integer because mathfags are faggy.

>> No.2510222

So. There is no possible way that zero could be composed of both odd and even occurrences?

>> No.2510226

ITS NOT EVEN ITS ODD BECAUSE YOU CANT DIVIDE IT BY 2

>> No.2510228

1~

>> No.2510231

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

>> No.2510232

>>2510226
0/2 = 0

>> No.2510239

>>2510232
only integer to act that way. and for some reason it's still called an integer although it defies all integer behavior.

>> No.2510245

>>2510231
assumes zero is an integer. fails to prove assumption. proof invalid.

>> No.2510256
File: 17 KB, 348x531, implying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2510256

I'm done, thanks for the information, I'll be the judge on whether it's true or not.

>> No.2510258

it was proven not to be odd, so they call it even.
that said, they never probed that it was even, simply that it wasn't odd.

>> No.2510266

>>2510239
0 is a magic number, bro.

>> No.2510278

You know, 0 doesn't exist. Deal with it.

>> No.2510282
File: 24 KB, 150x190, ha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2510282

>>2510256

>implying you have any authority over numbers/lack of numbers

>> No.2510288

>>2510196
>>2510214
>>2510222
>>2510226
>>2510239
>>2510245
>>2510258
>>2510266
>>2510278
confirmed for idiot

>> No.2510293
File: 33 KB, 640x480, mmmdelisius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2510293

It is odd because aether is a fag

>> No.2510298

>>2510293
this

>> No.2510309

Dividing numbers into "odd" and "even" is such a typical base 10 way to look at things. Why must we always categorize everything into groups such as "us" and "them"? Can't we just all get along?

>> No.2510321
File: 13 KB, 233x272, ....png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2510321

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_of_zero
>pic

SERIOUSLY???

>> No.2510328

Ist this /b/ or what? Although it's somewhat sophisticated, it is still trolling.
The set of integers IZ is the disjoint union of 0+2*IZ and 1+2*IZ. The elements of the first are called even, the others are called odd. Clearly, 0 = 0 + 2*0 \in 0+2*IZ, so it's even, and I don't see any fucking problem.
I mean, give me one fucking reason you wouldn't call it even.

>> No.2510354

>>2510282
the guy is one of those self-important narcissists who thinks that what he thinks and says matters (notice how he repeats the same retarded question)

>> No.2510368

Oddly enough it is even.

>> No.2510391

>>2510328
remember the time only one person even attempted to give the definition of even and odd numbers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(mathematics)
No proof is needed. It is even by definition.

>> No.2510536

>>2510391
That's a misleading way to argue. Everything in maths is 'by definition', even the Fermat's Last Theorem is true 'by a couple of definitions', although the way between definition and FLT is rather long. But as long as you don't define
'0 is odd'
but you do define
'a odd :<=> a in 2*IZ'
you have to proove that 0 is in 2*IZ (it's trivial and you will usually skip that part of the proof, assuming your reader or whoever will be able to do this part by himself; however, to get a logically stringent thing this part _must_ be done, and that's what matters.)