Logical Suicide (dividing by ZERO)

[Lster]

Its stupid not to use zero. Zero is simply a lack of anything... How can you explain this without zero?

You have 3 apples and give 3 away to your friend... Now you have 0 apples!

[deanlinkous]

So you have nothing apples? How do you have nothing apples? You either have something or you do not, there is no 'have nothing of something' you simply do not have.

I had three apples, I gave 3 away ergo I have nothing. No reason to mention apples beyond saying what I had and what I gave away because the nothing that I now have is not a apple it is simply nothing.

[deanlinkous]

That's easy, because then you've got ONE half of an apple.

Yes, I was speaking about whole numbers should skip zero we would still have decimals of course.

[PriceChild]

Awwww come on, I bet they were sayin' the same thing back when they "invented" 0 too

You're all a bunch of old codgers who hate new stuff hahahahaha

0, fractions, irrational numbers, complex numbers.... all VERY useful.

However I cannot understand what this is actually for? the limit of a/b where a is any (positive) number and b approaches 0 is infinity? Why can we not call a/0 infinity even though its up for debate. Why create a new name when we already have one? - Ok reading that I realise why /0 and infinity may be different... but personally I don't believe they are.

/me scratches head.

Pricey

[Lster]

Its all just a form of notation...

[Shay Stephens]

Why use double quotes when single quotes will do?
Why do I need dress shoes when I have perfectly good pair of sneakers?
Why do I need a paring knife when I have all these steak knives laying around?
Who needs anything but grape jelly?
Why is there so many ways of saying snow in eskimo?

Fine tools, make for fine work. Having the right tool for the job makes all the difference in the world. So if this new number thingy helps someone, anyone, then it is a good thing.

The people who look back a thousand years from now will chortle that we didn't the quad-dimensional zippy do dah, and how did we ever manage without it hehehe

If zero were good enough, it would be used. If infinty were good enough, it too would be used. But apparently it's not, for reasons I frankly don't comprehend. So what is the harm in making a "number" or symbol or whatever it is to stand in for that situation. I know I would rather see that symbol in the calculator rather than the big flashing "does not compute" message I get now

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by deanlinkous
...
It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!

I guess you could argue that it isn't even (although I see no reason why it shouldn't be even), there's no way zero is odd.

You must be thinking of infinity.

[arnieboy]

a few comments on the article and the proof:
1) Infinity is not a number. It is a concept.
2) 0/0 has remained undefined for a good reason.
The scientist defined 0/0 = nullity (a new number outside the regular number line). Calling it a new number is not right. 0/0 is undefined because there are infinite answers for the same.
For example, 0/0 could be anything (ranging from -infinity to infinity) because any number multiplied by 0 would yield 0 (including 0 itself).
About the proof:
The scientist writes 0^0 as follows

0^0=(0^1)*(0^-1)=0/0= nullity

If I do believe in Nullity I can also write the above as follows:

0^0=(0^x)*(0^-x)=(0/0)^x= nullity^x

where x can be any number (lets take integers for simplicity's sake) ranging from -infinity to infinity excluding 0 itself
Now if the above two expressions are the same as they should be, then

Nullity^x=Nullity

which brings us back to the argument that "Nullity" is actually undefined and can take multiple solutions.
For example

1^x=1
0^x=0

Since both 1 and 0 satisfy Nullity's properties as well as the value of 0/0, Nullity is basically undefined and a wrong concept.

[FyreBrand]

Actually I think 0 is a mistake.

How many do you have? zero?????
No you do not have any. There should be no placeholder for "none" at all. We should go from a positive 1 to a negative one since that is all that matters.

It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!

0 is even by the accepted definition of even. I think more people argue whether it's appropriate to include 0 in the set of positive integers more than they argue whether 0 is even.

I didn't read the in-depth discussion on the news site because it's in real file format. But the more specific you can define mathematical properties the better. Maybe there isn't a daily applicational use for that, but what if it is the missing puzzle piece to a complicated proof that we've been trying to figure out? It would be silly to just discount it because it makes us feel uncomfortable or think out of the box. If it's utter rubbish then it will be proved to be so (or if he can't prove it) and be discarded by the math community.

[Daveski]

Since both 1 and 0 satisfy Nullity's properties as well as the value of 0/0, Nullity is basically undefined and a wrong concept.

Well I'm convinced by this explanation. But then I think that 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2...