What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

6 - 1 x 0 + 2 ÷ 2 = ? (1 Viewer)

I'm not being totally serious- I teach math. However, this stuff was very seriously debated for lengthy periods of time and wasn't so easily accepted as we seem to take it be. I can show you 2 apples, I can not show you -2 apples. Can I show you zero apples?
Johnny has 4 apples.Mary takes 2 from Johnny. 4 - 2 = 2

There, I just showed you what -2 apples looks like.
You subtracted a positive number. Subtraction isn't the same as the concept of a number less than zero. If Johnny had 2 apples and Mary took 4 apples from him, then I would be impressed.
 
I still don't believe in negative numbers or 0.
After explaining why .9 repeating is equal to 1 it starts to cross a line that people aren't comfortable with and starts to become a belief more than an agreed upon truth.
Huh?
0.999999999999...... (repeating forever) is 1. Save the keystrokes and the ink. It's just another way of writing the number one.
But it's not. 1 > .999999999......

 
I'm not being totally serious- I teach math. However, this stuff was very seriously debated for lengthy periods of time and wasn't so easily accepted as we seem to take it be. I can show you 2 apples, I can not show you -2 apples. Can I show you zero apples?
I have a basket. It doesn't have any apples in it. Can you use that to demonstrate it has 0 apples?

 
Proof that you already know and understand. Nobody ever has a problem with these first two items:

1/3 = 0.3333333....

2/3 = 0.6666666....

Add the two lines together.

3/3 = 0.9999999....

 
I'm not being totally serious- I teach math. However, this stuff was very seriously debated for lengthy periods of time and wasn't so easily accepted as we seem to take it be. I can show you 2 apples, I can not show you -2 apples. Can I show you zero apples?
I have a basket. It doesn't have any apples in it. Can you use that to demonstrate it has 0 apples?
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?My big knock on 0 is that if something is a number, than we should be able to perform the four basic mathematic functions with it, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not being totally serious- I teach math. However, this stuff was very seriously debated for lengthy periods of time and wasn't so easily accepted as we seem to take it be. I can show you 2 apples, I can not show you -2 apples. Can I show you zero apples?
I have a basket. It doesn't have any apples in it. Can you use that to demonstrate it has 0 apples?
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?My big knock on 0 is that if something is a number, than we should be able to perform the four basic mathematic functions with it, right?
I would have to say it's the absence of a number, but the construct of 0 functions as a number so, while technically it's not a number, it can be used in calculations as such. Similar to i.

 
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?
It's a number.

I remember getting into an argument with my brother about the score of a football game that had just started. He said it didn't have a score. I said it did have a score: the score was zero to zero. That's a score.

Similarly, when the slope of a line is zero, it has a slope of zero. (It doesn't not have a slope.) When the sum of a few addends is zero, their sum is zero. (They don't not have a sum.) And so on.

Zero is a value in its own right; it's not simply the absence of a value.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?
It's a number.

I remember getting into an argument with my brother about the score of a football game that had just started. He said it didn't have a score. I said it did have a score: the score was zero to zero. That's a score.

Similarly, when the slope of a line is zero, it has a slope of zero. (It doesn't not have a slope.) When the sum of a few addends is zero, their sum is zero. (They don't not have a sum.) And so on.

Zero is a value in its own right; it's not simply the absence of a value.
Which would be null.

 
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?
It's a number.

I remember getting into an argument with my brother about the score of a football game that had just started. He said it didn't have a score. I said it did have a score: the score was zero to zero. That's a score.

Similarly, when the slope of a line is zero, it has a slope of zero. (It doesn't not have a slope.) When the sum of a few addends is zero, their sum is zero. (They don't not have a sum.) And so on.

Zero is a value in its own right; it's not simply the absence of a value.
Which would be null.
Zero degrees Celsius is not null, it indicates a presence of heat.

 
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?
It's a number.

I remember getting into an argument with my brother about the score of a football game that had just started. He said it didn't have a score. I said it did have a score: the score was zero to zero. That's a score.

Similarly, when the slope of a line is zero, it has a slope of zero. (It doesn't not have a slope.) When the sum of a few addends is zero, their sum is zero. (They don't not have a sum.) And so on.

Zero is a value in its own right; it's not simply the absence of a value.
Which would be null.
Zero degrees Celsius is not null, it indicates a presence of heat.
Im saying the absence of a value is not zero, it's called a null value.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Ilov80s said:
Is zero a number or the absence of a number?
It's a number.
I agree, but similar to some of the earlier discussion, zero is a number kinda because we've defined it as such. (This goes a little beyond my pay grade, but IIRC we can and do study algebraic structures like semigroups that don't contain an additive identity.) The same way we define negative numbers as additive inverses, or 1/2 as a number, or i as a number, or really anything else in math. Even the existence of something as seemingly obvious as the number 2 is ultimately founded on some set of axioms that we just sort of accept as true, and upon which we build definitions of everything else.

I remember getting into an argument with my brother about the score of a football game that had just started. He said it didn't have a score. I said it did have a score: the score was zero to zero. That's a score.
The score of the game is "zero to zero," which isn't a number, it's a string representing the state of the game.

When the game has first started, you could ask, "How many points have the Giants scored?" and I might respond, "They haven't." In that sense, one might argue that 0 isn't the number of points scored, it's merely the way we describe an absence of points.

Anyway, like I said, I don't disagree with you, just providing a different take. To the side that might argue that numbers must correspond to physical representations, can you give me pi apples (not to be confused with apple pie, of course)? Is pi not a number?

Numbers, like other mathematical constructs (such as the order of operations), are for the most part what we agree they are. Whether zero is or isn't really a number is a pointless but possibly fun philosophical diversion. :shrug:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top