ADN

All right. That makes a little more sense. lol

If the cat is outside in the open in a rain storm, it is safe to say that the cat is wet. However, if the cat is outside in the open and it is wet, that does not mean that it is raining (which is how you are presenting your argument).

Hmm...This is a perfectly logical statement to me...Just because a cat is outside and in the open DOESN'T mean that is raining..,You deduct that the only ways a cat can get wet is by it being outside and raining by doing so, and that's not what I'm doing...Am I correct in saying that a cat can get wet in a variety of ways..? Can I dump a bucket of water on a cat..? Can it slip into a pool..? These things make sense to me, please explain how they don't make sense to you...

But to say that because one is a number the other one must be is flawed logic

Neither I nor Merriam Webster consider 0 a number, I'll take mine and their flawed logic to the bank anyday...

Can you perform math functions with zero? Absolutely! You can add, subtract, and multiply with 0 and get real answers. You can divide numbers into zero and get a real answer....

Can you perform math functions with alphabets and get real answers..? I think so...You can't take 0 and divide it by 5 and call that a 'real' answer cause you can't divide 0...You can't divide 5 by 0, and call that a real answer, because it doesn't exist...How can you multiply, add, subtact, and divide nothing, and call that a real answer..? Yes it is there, and it is understood, but that doesn't make it a number...No more than the x in the expression 5 - x = 2 makes it a number...

Real talk, if you replaced the 0 with another symbol, say a -, and adopted that in the place of it, we would be just fine...So, instead of writing 5,001, we would write 5,--1...Would that make the - a number..? Of course not...

@ Habib - The faster you realize that that are all kinds of numbers, and number sets, the minute I'll start paying attention to what you say...I didn't ask if 0 was an integer, I asked if it was a number...All integers are numbers, but all numbers are not integers...For example, 9.5 is a number...It is not an integer...Both you and Kramer a reading shit that's not there...Yikes...

Integer defined: link to definition
1 : any of the natural numbers, the negatives of these numbers, or zero

Number defined: link to definition
1 : the number 1 or any number (as 3, 12, 432) obtained by adding 1 to it one or more times : a positive integer

Is zero unique? Yes. Does it have unique properties? Again, yes. But it's value and properties are well defined and understood (at least by myself and most rocket scientists), allowing for it's use in both simple and complex mathematical calculations (unlike infinity).

I ABSOLUTELY 100% AGREE...And the simple fact that you can't say that about 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 should make it crystal clear why 0 isn't a number...No other 'number' needs those distinctions and special understanding....

Captain, we are being attacked by 0,000,000 battlships, what do we do...?!?!?!?

You put ANY 'number' besides 0 in the above sentence, and you have a reason to shit yourself if that's you being attacked...Just because you can use it, and understand it, and mix it up with equations and calculations doesn't make it any more a number...

Yes, the cat is outside in the open and it is wet, and that does not mean that it is raining... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

QUOTE(AYHJA)@ Habib - The faster you realize that that are all kinds of numbers, and number sets, the minute I'll start paying attention to what you say...I didn't ask if 0 was an integer, I asked if it was a number...All integers are numbers, but all numbers are not integers...For example, 9.5 is a number...It is not an integer...Both you and Kramer a reading shit that's not there...Yikes...


You have answered your question yourself, cause you've said "all integers are numbers" right?
And zero is an INTEGER, which makes it a NUMBER.

AGAIN:
An integer is a number without a decimal! 0 is an integer right-that means that zero IS a number without a decimal.
http://www.google.com.om/search?hl=en&...teger&meta=

Jeez, this isn't that hard to understand AYHJA.

Habib...I hope you understand what you are talking about, cause I sure don't...

Do you understand that there is a difference between a number and an integer..? Jesus, it must be hard to understand, cause you don't seem to get it...

5 = Integer + Number
-5 = Integer (Negatives aren't numbers)
5.5 = Number (Integers cannot be fractions)

You only need include 0 if you are dealing with integers, as 0 isn't a natural number like 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9...

Damn man, the defintion you posted says an integer is a value...That doesn't make it a number...It says right there "Integers are never fractions" which means that there MUST be a difference between an integer and a number...How ae you trying to read me defintions, when you yourself don't understand them..? Fractions are numbers, as they are representative of a whole...A chair can have 3.5 legs...That 3.5 is a number, but not an integer...

I hope for your sake, you understand the things you are trying to tell me...

Read your own post, it says, "positive members of which are often called counting or natural numbers."

Clearly, it draws the line between what an integer is, and what a number is...Soooooo, maybe you should read it yourself so you can better understand it..?

The question asked if zero was a number...I didn't ask if it was an integer...The two are related, but clearly not one in the same...Your arguing for 0 to be a number on the basis of being an integer makes no sense...

For example, tell me, Habib, what number is this: 00,000.00

What about this one..? 000

Or, this one..? 000,000,000

Dude, you didn't read that definition.

First definition says right here: A number without a decimal (0, 1, 25, 173, 1032, etc.). Integer values can be less than, equal to, or greater than zero.

Another: A whole number (ie a number containing no fractional part), such as 0, 1, 2, etc.

Another: Any number in the set (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...).

You can CLEARLY see yourself that those 3 definitions prove zero as a number, and then you're there telling me "I don't understand what I'm saying, please it isn't that hard, you should read it more.

The question asks if zero is a number right? And then you said "Your arguing for 0 to be a number on the basis of being an integer makes no sense... "

Why doesn't it make any sense, when I've proved it right there for you with the definition? Okay, you are asking if zero is a number.
You then say, "there must be a difference between an integer and a number". That question is GENERIC, suppose you said "there must be a difference between an integer and a REAL NUMBER", then you have a point.
It doesn't make sense to say "there must be a difference between an integer and a number", because an integer IS anumber. It's a number WITHOUT a decimal.
You also said "negatives aren't numbers", hmm, why is that so? Negatives are integers as well right (as long as it doesn't have a decimal), LoL and key definition: "Integer: A number without a decimal (0, 1, 25, 173, 1032, etc.). Integer values can be less than, equal to, or greater than zero.", that proves what you said about negative numbers wrong.

It's an integer, and integer is a number and therefore that makes zero a number.

PLEASE AYHJA, LOOK AGAIN AT THIS DEFINITION! "Any number in the set (..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...)."

Or are you now going against the definition of an integer?

Please, unless you decide to change the definition of an integer (which you CAN'T), Zero would remain a NUMBER. Re-read those list of definitions I posted up there man.

0 is a NUMERAL representing an indivisible and valueless integer known as zed, or "zero". The lack of zero's ability to serve as a quotient, dividend, or a divisor categorizes it as being something which has many values of a number, including positional value, but inherently remaining something other than a number.

Thus 0 is a quantum paradox.

Zero is the only number you can verbally count to in silence.

i'd like to get into the discussion but i'm still busy downloading & reading the Lucifer comics. /:D" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt=":D" />

this might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

QUOTE(AYHJA)If the cat is outside in the open in a rain storm, it is safe to say that the cat is wet. However, if the cat is outside in the open and it is wet, that does not mean that it is raining (which is how you are presenting your argument).

Hmm...This is a perfectly logical statement to me...Just because a cat is outside and in the open DOESN'T mean that is raining..,You deduct that the only ways a cat can get wet is by it being outside and raining by doing so, and that's not what I'm doing...Am I correct in saying that a cat can get wet in a variety of ways..? Can I dump a bucket of water on a cat..? Can it slip into a pool..? These things make sense to me, please explain how they don't make sense to you...
Read it again. I did not in any way deduce that a cat can only get wet when it rains. I only pointed out that if a cat is outside, unprotected in the rain - it will be wet but if a cat is outside unprotected and it is wet - that does NOT mean that it is raining. We agree on that. As you pointed out, their could be many ways to get your pussy wet... /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

We could argue this all day, but in my mind the ultimate test of a number is it's ability to be used to describe quantity (and saying that I have 0 of something is just as descriptive as saying I have 53 of them) and to be used to perform math. Your alphabet argument doesn't fly with me because ultimately the E and the M and the C in e=mc2 are just representations of an underlying number. They are not the number themselves...They are placeholders where the actual number can / will be substituted and are used for convenience of communicating the idea behind the mathematical relationship. As for 5--1 instead of 5001, go for it.... but over here in my little world we would write it as †™‚¢‚¢¢¢¬…¡‚¬¢‚¬Å¡‚¡†™

 ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¾†™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚¾†

™ ¢‚¬„¢¢‚¬Å¡‚°. The reality is that anything you write, "1" - "b" - "dog" - etc, is just a written (visual) representation of some underlying concept. The fact that you keep coming back to 1-2-3-4-etc tells me that you are really only concerned with counting (natural) numbers. and again, I would say that IF that is the case, than zero is not a number... however, if you are not limiting yourself to that antiquated counting system, than zero is a very important member of the larger number community.

QUOTEsaying that I have 0 of something is just as descriptive as saying I have 53 of them

but saying nothing is just as descriptive as saying in have none, any or, all of them.

0 is not a number,.. it is the complete lack of a number.

No - it is the complete lack of VALUE. So show me where it says that a number must have value....