ADN

OK - since Ayhja brought up Webster..... These are from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary;
Number:
(1) : a unit belonging to an abstract mathematical system and subject to specified laws of succession, addition, and multiplication; Which I have already shown applies to 0 (2) : an element (as π) of any of many mathematical systems obtained by extension of or analogy with the natural number system. * note that it is not limited to natural numbers but includes all numeric systems that are an extension of said system (which systems include 0)

Zero:
(1) a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity b : ADDITIVE IDENTITY; specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers c : a value of an independent variable that makes a function equal to zero <+2 and -2 are zeros of f(x)=x2-4>
(2) -- see NUMBER table

Main Entry: additive identity
Function: noun
: an identity element (as 0 in the group of whole numbers under the operation of addition) that in a given mathematical system leaves unchanged any element to which it is added .

What? huh? Webster just referred to 0 as a number (included in the set of whole numbers) and even includes it on a table?
That's right boys and girls....

The confusion arises only when you look at NATURAL NUMBERS and it's just not natural to count by starting with 0 (since it lacks value).

0 is a number.... it's not natural, but it is a number....
...no convincing me otherwise...

...I wash my hands of this thread...

-Mr. SM

Thanks for all you proved here Mr. SM, every bit of info you posted here was logical and useful.

I also say "0 is a number, no convincing me otherwise."

I also wash my hands out of this thread.

I'm out, peace.

@ st4 and Habib

Did...The very first definition of 0 say, "a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity"...

Wai, wai...

Symbol..?

The Aritmetical symbol..?

(1) a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity b : ADDITIVE IDENTITY; specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers

But we've already established, that when you use negative numbers, you are talking about integers, which don't include "natural" numbers...?

it's not natural, but it is a number

Sounds alot to me like, "His momma named him Clay, I'ma call him Clay..."

Yup, I'd wash my hands and leave the thread to... /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

Zero is useful in everyday use, unlike many other numbers, natural or otherwise. How many girls did I fuck tonight? Zero. How many on monday? One. I guess it'd be possible to assign the first value as "one less one", but why bother. Zero get's the job done and it's twice as sassy.

Indeed..!

AYHJA did not say 0 was anything less than useful, necessary, and all that...But in the truest sense, it isn't a number...That's all I said...Nothing more, nothing less...

Ayhja, the cat is wet again....

Just because "0" is a symbol, that does not mean that it is NOT or can not be a number. The two are not mutually exclusive. As I tried to point out before, when it comes right down to it...any "number" that you write is a symbol (and we refer to the symbols as numerals).
Numerals differ from numbers just as words differ from the things they refer to. The symbols "11", "eleven" and "XI" are different numerals, all representing the same number (or value, position, concept). "0", "zero", "nill", "null", "void", etc. are all numerals as well and represent the starting value of our number system.

Think of it this way, numbers represent a value, or position away from some starting point. Because the position is relative to that starting point, it is implied that the starting point is included in, and indeed, essential to the system, else the value or position is irrelevent. If you told me that you had one of something, and I did not recognize 0 as a part of the system, but rather accepted 14 as the magic beginning of all things numeric, I would interpret your numeric 1 as being 15 (even though it's value would still be 1 for both of us). When I begin to count and I say "one", it is implied that I have moved one position away from nothing. I do not need to begin the count by saying "0" or "nothing" because it is implied in our base 10 decimal system of counting as the starting point. The 10 numerals in a decimal system are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and they represent the same numbers or values. The numerals 0, 10, 20, 30, etc. are similar in that they denote the beginning of the next count of 10 (which immediately follows with 1, 11, 21, 31, etc.).

QUOTE(AYHJA)That's all I said...Nothing more, nothing less...
Didn't you mean to say, "That's all I said †™¢¢¬…¡¢‚¬Å¡‚± 0"

Tee hee, I thought you implied that you were going to have '0' more replies to this thread...In that light, yes, zero is a number... /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

You've already said what I was after, and aside from a good healthy debate, hopefully we have learned a bit about semantics...

So do you now agree that it's a number?

QUOTE(Habib)So do you now agree that it's a number?
Habib - your age is showing.....
It's not about coming in first, or even the destination.... It's the journey that's important...

QUOTE(AYHJA)Tee hee, I thought you implied that you were going to have '0' more replies to this thread...In that light, yes, zero is a number... /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> I did more than imply that... lol I just couldn't help myself.... it is just such a fun debate!

So in that light, just a few more points...
QUOTE(AYHJA)If...Zero were a number...Why isn't it on the calendar..?That's a great question and one that has caused a lot of confusion for many people. I remember all the doom-sayers predicting the end of the world when we entered the new millennium - supposedly triggered by all the Y2K computer problems....
I laughed my ass off because Y2K did not signal the new millennium or the turn of the century because when the calendar was set up, they did not include the year zero. So, while many people feared/celebrated the new millennium on December 31, 1999 / January 1, 2000, what they were really celebrating was the passing of only 1,999 years... LMAO - bunch of ass-hats IMHO....
As for me, I had a GREAT end of the world party on December 31, 2000 / January 1, 2001 and celebrated the tru turn of the century in style. Me and all my rocket scientist friends raised our glasses to welcome the millennium and, of course, to offer a toast to 0.

I believe you asked once to see a paper on the topic as a form of proof (notice I did not say or mean to imply that said paper would be final proof, just evidence to back argument...), and so I offer you this; http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... /Zero.html

-Mr. SM-
but not gone and never forgotten