ADN

Quite contrary, negative numbers are called integers, and do not constitute as natural numbers...A fraction, for example, is not an integer, as integers cannot be fractions...And numbers cannot be negative...

And a balance is a balance, not a number...You can't have -6.23 in your pocket...But again, what does this have to do with 0..?

How are you defining number..? Cause its different than any defintion I've seen...

Number... place holder... value... number.

There is often a difference between what I call it and what Webster calls it.

i don't care what Webster's says about 0,.. it is classified as NAN (Not Any Number). it is an inoperable numeral, that doesn't have ALL the qualities of a number.

If you can add it to a number and increase it's value, then it is also a number.

if it can not serve as a divisor or dividend, it is not a number.

#DIV/0 = ERROR!!!

If you can add it to a number and increase it's value, then it is also a number.

Doesn't this score one for the 'No 0' team..?

NO, I view 0 as a number. In the most basic definition, 0 is a number. Number chart starts with 0. So, the acedemic world views it as a number, then so do I.

I undertsand what everyone else is saying, but counting to 10... starts with 0. Add 0 and increase a numbers value, then it is a number. My view.

Actually, the number line ends with 0. It goes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0

And RR what you said about "If you can add it to a number and increase it's value, then it is also a number" is an arguement against 0 being a number. Can you tell me of anytime that you add 0 to any other number and it'll increase it's value?

Add a 0 to 1 and it is increased by 10. Therefor, the new number of 10 is the direct cause of adding 0.

If you add 0 to 1 you get 1. As in 0+1=1. You are using 0 just as a placeholder which would not make 0 a number