Does 0+0=0?

[James R]

Take a break for a day, Reiku, and learn some maths.

 

[ashura]

Too much pseudoscience in the pseudoscience subforum? Seriously?

:roflmao:

 

[James R]

On this occasion, yes.

 

[USS Athens]

Zero has NO size and NO value, It's simply a convenient construct, a concept, not something that has physical nor mathematical attributes.

I'd have to say that's about right.

 

[USS Athens]

I must ask you, James R, how do you not believe that numbers are infinite?

 

[brokenpower]

http://ezinearticles.com/?Brahmagupta-Invented-Zero&id=1295365

 

[Read-Only]

I'd have to say that's about right.

I have to say that I never expected this thread to go on so long.

Evidently, the original poster has NO idea what a construct or concept is. :shrug:

And whenever Reiku gets involved in a duscussion of ANY kind, it just gets deeper in muddy water.

 

[funkstar]

's another identity: 0x = 0 for all x except x=0.

Why the "except x=0"?

 

[Enmos]

At the risk of playing into Mr. Bannans hands..

0[sup]0[/sup] = 1

 

[Sciencelovah]

Oh, what have I missed? Reiku is banned?

Edit: only 1 day

James, it took so long to load the ban list page.

 

[Enmos]

Oh, what have I missed? Reiku is banned?

Only for a day.

 

[Enmos]

At the risk of playing into Mr. Bannans hands..

0[sup]0[/sup] = 1

James,
I do have a question of my own..

0[sup]0[/sup] != 0*0 :shrug:

Edit: Duh.. never mind. Of course 0[sup]0[/sup] != 0[sup]2[/sup]

Edit2: I was momentarily confused because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_product
I believe this may lie at the heart of Johns confusion as well.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Only for a day.

I thought for a year Just kidding, Reiku. Sometimes it is funny to read your post

 

[Read-Only]

I thought for a year Just kidding, Reiku. Sometimes it is funny to read your post

Funny? Only to people who enjoy watching someone make a fool of himself - or a masochist who likes the pain of reading big lists of nonsense.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Funny? Only to people who enjoy watching someone make a fool of himself - or a masochist who likes the pain of reading big lists of nonsense.

Where else you can see something like this:

''Zero isn't an infinitesimally small number. It is zero. Thinking of it as an infinitesimally small number is giving it "size" which it does not have.''

$$1=(0.50i)(0.50i)= \sqrt{-1}$$

Here, 0.50 can be considered a value under 1, and yet also considered as not actually being real at all. So in a sense, this superposition is a proof that zero has some kind of value with another conjugate.

Reiku, you should put plus (+) in between:
$$(0.50i)+(0.50i)= \sqrt{-1}$$

 

[Read-Only]

Where else you can see something like this:



Reiku, you should put plus (+) in between:
$$(0.50i)+(0.50i)= \sqrt{-1}$$

How true and typical of Reiku - a "professional writer" who cannot pay attention to details.

 

[Enmos]

Where else you can see something like this:



Reiku, you should put plus (+) in between:
$$(0.50i)+(0.50i)= \sqrt{-1}$$

Yes.
$$\sqrt{-1}$$ should be written as $$i\sqrt{1}$$ by the way.

 

[domesticated om]

At the risk of playing into Mr. Bannans hands..

0[sup]0[/sup] = 1

Hahaha. That's pretty darn funny actually.

 

[John J. Bannan]

No, an infinitesimally small number is a number whose absolute value is less than any positive number. Zero is the only such number.

Where's the proof?

 

[John J. Bannan]

John Bannan:



No, they aren't.



It's not clear to me in what sense you are using the term "size" now. It sounds like you're thinking of numbers as intervals, as if the number 1, for example, "stretched" from 0.999 to 1.111 or something. Think of a number line. Are you saying that individual numbers on the line take up some fraction of the line? If so, then that is wrong. Numbers are points on the line. The number 1 has no extension - it is a point of zero width on the number line.

Does that help?



Addition is not defined with reference to "sizes". As I said before, it is an arithmetical identity that x + 0 = x for all x. Therefore 0 + 0 = 0.

Here's another identity: 0x = 0 for all x except x=0. Therefore 2 times zero is zero, for example. So, 2 zeros is the same as 1 zero - it has the value zero.



Zero isn't an infinitesimally small number. It is zero. Thinking of it as an infinitesimally small number is giving it "size" which it does not have.

Doesn't "1" have relative size? Isn't "1" half of "2"? I could ask, what is the size of "1". And I could answer, "1" is half the size of "2". Sure, numbers are points. But, they also have relative size.
Next, does a series of numbers, say from zero to 1 have size?