No such thing as 0

[Vipers]

O dear, 5 pages and still going

[K12beano]

Vipers said:

O dear, 5 pages and still going

There’s some more sensible posts on page 0....

[Voldemort]

1 - 1 = ?

[AW111]

Voldemort said:

1 - 1 = ?

H

[4x4Tyke]

Voldemort said:

1 - 1 = ?

Our survey said ...

[glenrobbo]

I have checked.

There is definitely such a thing:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_of_O

[Shakermaker]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

It makes calculations easier.

This.

Roman numerals have no zero, trying doing maths with roman numerals.

The Hindus invented zero, the great Islamic scholars refined its use, and when it arrived in Europe, the catholic church banned it for 200 years because they didn't want the people to be able to do sums and realise that the church was fleecing them.

In Roman Numbers, the answer to X - V - II - III is:

You just don't write it. They don't have a character to represent the value of 0. From a verbal and written point of view, different words would be used to indicate facts where there was nothing remaining. The concept of nothing in counting was fine, just there was no specific character to represent it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Shakermaker said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Dr Jekyll said:

It makes calculations easier.

This.

Roman numerals have no zero, trying doing maths with roman numerals.

The Hindus invented zero, the great Islamic scholars refined its use, and when it arrived in Europe, the catholic church banned it for 200 years because they didn't want the people to be able to do sums and realise that the church was fleecing them.

In Roman Numbers, the answer to X - V - II - III is:

You just don't write it. They don't have a character to represent the value of 0. From a verbal and written point of view, different words would be used to indicate facts where there was nothing remaining. The concept of nothing in counting was fine, just there was no specific character to represent it.

Try doing long multiplication or division in purely Roman numerals without a written zero. Something like 1225 x 110. MCCXXV times CX

[AndStilliRise]

Databases entries would be easier to manage, if we omitted the 0. i.e. On numerical values we either have a positive value or null.

[Shakermaker]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Try doing long multiplication or division in purely Roman numerals without a written zero. Something like 1225 x 110. MCCXXV times CX

No, because there is no point to it.

The Romans managed to survive without a written 0, but then it was the Greeks who were known for their mathematical ability in many cases?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Shakermaker said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Try doing long multiplication or division in purely Roman numerals without a written zero. Something like 1225 x 110. MCCXXV times CX

No, because there is no point to it.

The Romans managed to survive without a written 0,

Previous generations managed to survive without a lot of stuff that makes my life easier. So what?

[Shakermaker]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Previous generations managed to survive without a lot of stuff that makes my life easier. So what?

What I mean is, there's no point me doing the long division in Roman Numerals. Also because I can't be bothered.

We have written 0, it makes perfect sense to us all (except the OP maybe?) it makes things easy when doing maths.

The Romans didn't have a written 0, but it didn't stop them, they managed to get around it in other ways that made sense to them.

One of the many wonders of different languages and systems in use!

[cobra kid]

Vipers said:

My car outside is doing zero mph.

What if it's been pinched?

[Shakermaker]

AndStilliRise said:

Butter Face said:

Eh?

0 is nothing, if you have 0 of something then you have none of it.

That's what I am saying. If you have 0 of something you have something of something. Why not just say you have either a minimal of 1 or nothing.

Most people "say" they have nothing/none

As in:

"How many Aston Martins do you own?"

"None"

Or "I don't own an Aston Martin"

Linguistically it is less common to say "zero" in either of those statements.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Shakermaker said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Previous generations managed to survive without a lot of stuff that makes my life easier. So what?

What I mean is, there's no point me doing the long division in Roman Numerals. Also because I can't be bothered.

We have written 0, it makes perfect sense to us all (except the OP maybe?) it makes things easy when doing maths.

The Romans didn't have a written 0, but it didn't stop them, they managed to get around it in other ways that made sense to them.

One of the many wonders of different languages and systems in use!

The Romans did get around the problem, but they eventually dropped roman numerals and adopted Arabic numbers, with a zero.....because it's far better. In much the same way as the UK eventually adopted decimal currency.

[CubanPete]

In materials anisotropic has always intrigued me as you are describing it as not having this property. Similar to 0 in many ways.

[AW111]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Romans did get around the problem, but they eventually dropped roman numerals and adopted Arabic numbers, with a zero.....because it's far better. In much the same way as the UK eventually adopted decimal currency.

And the Americans adopted the metric system?

[Zod]

AndStilliRise said:

It has occurred to me that there is no such thing as 0. You can't have 0 of something as that would imply that 0 is more than nothing. However if 0 is nothing then why don't we use this instead? Using a computer or programming would be much easier dealing with two states rather than 3.

Would anyone agree with me? Or have I got this wrong (possible but not probable)?

You are wrong. If you were correct, then 0/0=1, but it doesn't, 0/0=undefined, i.e. it makes no sense because you cannot divide nothing by nothing.

[FredClogs]

Zod said:

AndStilliRise said:

It has occurred to me that there is no such thing as 0. You can't have 0 of something as that would imply that 0 is more than nothing. However if 0 is nothing then why don't we use this instead? Using a computer or programming would be much easier dealing with two states rather than 3.

Would anyone agree with me? Or have I got this wrong (possible but not probable)?

You are wrong. If you were correct, then 0/0=1, but it doesn't, 0/0=undefined, i.e. it makes no sense because you cannot divide nothing by nothing.

Phillip Hammond and Theresa May might argue otherwise after the cuts to funding of public services rumoured in next weeks budget.

No one's mentioned the Boolean 0 yet, or 0 == FALSE.

[Zod]

FredClogs said:

Zod said:

AndStilliRise said:

It has occurred to me that there is no such thing as 0. You can't have 0 of something as that would imply that 0 is more than nothing. However if 0 is nothing then why don't we use this instead? Using a computer or programming would be much easier dealing with two states rather than 3.

Would anyone agree with me? Or have I got this wrong (possible but not probable)?

You are wrong. If you were correct, then 0/0=1, but it doesn't, 0/0=undefined, i.e. it makes no sense because you cannot divide nothing by nothing.

Phillip Hammond and Theresa May might argue otherwise after the cuts to funding of public services rumoured in next weeks budget.

It had to be you (or JawKnee). You couldn't even come up with something that made sense.