Multiplying apples

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2007 01:16 pm
In what way is this pseudo-problem connected with the alleged 'is'/'ought' 'fallacy'?
premiss 1: 10 apples
premiss 2: multiply with 0
conclusion: you still have 10 apples

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, you have repeated this pseudo-argument several times, but unless you can show what this has to do with the alleged 'is'/'ought' fallacy, I am going to delete any more that you post on this (in this thread).

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 07, 2007 04:18 pm
Yes, you have repeated this pseudo-argument several times, but unless you can show what this has to do with the alleged 'is'/'ought' fallacy, I am going to delete any more that you post on this (in this thread).
okay agent Smith i dont argue with you any more <_<

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You can argue with me, but not in this thread about that spurious problem.

Open up another thread somewhere and I will bat it out of the park for you.

[syndicat]

hajduk is confusing muliplication with addition. i&#39;ll give a proof that
10 x 0 = 0 as follows:

we know that this is true:

1. 10 = 10 + 0

you add nothing to something and you have only what you started with.

now, it so happens that multiplication is distributive:

2. N*(a+b)=(N*a)+(N*b)

hence:

3. (10*10) = (10*10)+(10*0)

Subtracting the same quantity from either side of the equation has no effect:

4. (10*10)-(10*10) = (10*10)-(10*10)+(10*0)

since

5. (10*10)-(10*10) = 0

we can infer from 4 and 5:

6. 0 = 10*0

QED

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Syndicat, but please do not encourage him. He needs to learn to post such stuff in the right section: Learning, or perhaps Research.

However, I do not think your argument addresses his material (but misguided) worry about &#39;mutiplying apples&#39;.

[syndicat]

yeah, multiplying by N is sort of like saying we&#39;ve got N copies of something. Zero copies of anything is still zero.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, but he already has 10 apples.

[syndicat]

yes, in which case the number of apples he has is not equal to 10 x 0. if says he wants to have a number of apples equal to 10 x 0 then he&#39;d better eat all those apples or get rid of them somehow because (10 x 0) apples is zero apples.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think it revolved around whether it makes sense to trying to mutliply apples, as opposed to numbers.

But, if we want to continue, we had better start a new thread.

-------------------------------------------------------------

OK, here is the solution to Hajduk&#39;s &#39;problem&#39;:

Multiplication is shorhand for addition.

So, + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 x 5 = 5

1 x 5 tells us we have repeated the addition operation five times.

Hence + 1 + 1 = 1 x 2 = 2, and thus 1 on its own is just +1 or 1 X 1 = 1

In that case 1 x 0 tells that no addition operation has been carried out, so 1 x 0 = 0.

The same is the case with 10 x 0; that tells us no addition has been carried out, and thus that 10 x 0 = 0.

Recall that 10 = + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 itself, which is 10 x 1.

So 10 x 0 is also + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +0 + 0 = 0

Now if you have ten apples, that is just +1 apple ten times:

+ 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple

In that case you can &#39;multiply&#39; one apple by ten (if that is taken to be shorthand for the above).

But, if that is so, you cannot &#39;muliply&#39; ten apples by zero, or rather, if you do, all you will have is this (but, English grammar requires the substantive &#39;apple&#39; to be plural in the case of &#39;zero apples&#39;):

+ 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples+ 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples.

I.e., no apples ten times, which is still no apples.

Hope that shows you Hajduk why your &#39;problem&#39; was a pseudo-problem.

[hajduk]

okay then we go like this

SOMETHING x NOTHING = SOMETHING

[Tower of Bebel]

yes, and this "something" is the word nothing.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 11:25 am
yes, and this "something" is the word nothing.
but if you got SOMETHING and you try to multiply with NOTHING you still got SOMETHING right?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk you cannot multiply words by other words.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 12:49 pm
Hajduk you cannot multiply words by other words.
Makes you think.....maybe we only SEEM to be able to multiply apples because the differences between the real apples are not significant for us. If we recognised the uniqueness of each object we would realise that multiplication only applies to number....as does the mathematical concepts of division and addition. Maybe only subtraction can apply to real world objects and even then only to one such object. Real world division never creates two identical halves.

The problem is that the mathematical operations require that the units are each the same.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil, I think it is important not to confuse the tightly defined operations we have in mathematics with the everyday things we do with apples and oranges.

Sure, the one developed no doubt from the other, but that does not mean we should run them together.

[hajduk]

Rosa this is connected with psilosophy of mathematics

10 x 0 IS 10
from SOMETHING multiply with NOTHING still stay SOMETHING
that is the rule in universe
PLANET who multiply with BIG BANG became PLANET IN SOLAR SYSTEM

[Tower of Bebel]

And what if you mulitply nothing (0) with something (10)?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, nothing is not zero, and something is not one, or ten. &#39;Nothing&#39; is a quantifier, as is &#39;something&#39;:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification

Zero is the exponent of an operation as is ten (i.e., they tell you how many times a particular operation (like counting) has been done).

And I have already covered the mutliplication of ten and zero.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


Rosa this is connected with psilosophy of mathematics

10 x 0 IS 10
from SOMETHING multiply with NOTHING still stay SOMETHING
that is the rule in universe
PLANET who multiply with BIG BANG became PLANET IN SOLAR SYSTEM

Hajduk, mathematics deal with numbers (operations, functions, and the like), not planets, still less words.

You are confusing words with mathematical objects, and quantifiers with numbers.

And I am not sure how you (or anyone else for that matter) could multipy a planet with the Big Bang.

You&#39;ll be telling me next that you can divide a lobster by the Ural mountains&#33;

You really must stop knitting words together randomly, thinking you have made some kind of sense.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 12:45 pm
H:


Rosa this is connected with psilosophy of mathematics

10 x 0 IS 10
from SOMETHING multiply with NOTHING still stay SOMETHING
that is the rule in universe
PLANET who multiply with BIG BANG became PLANET IN SOLAR SYSTEM

Hajduk, mathematics deal with numbers (operations, functions, and the like), not planets, still less words.

You are confusing words with mathematical objects, and quantifiers with numbers.

And I am not sure how you (or anyone else for that matter) could multipy a planet with the Big Bang.

You&#39;ll be telling me next that you can divide a lobster by the Ural mountains&#33;

You really must stop knitting words together randomly, thinking you have made some kind of sense.
there is a sense in this
is not random
look
if you got
10 X 0 = 10
SOMETHING x NOTHING = SOMETHING
PLANET X BIG BANG = PLANET IN SOLAR SYSTEM (BIG BANG is explosion and in that manner he is personification of nothing,0)
formula is the same whatever does we speak about numbers,words or universe
becouse if we say that 10 x 0 = 0 then we doesnt exist

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 08, 2007 03:43 pm
Gil, I think it is important not to confuse the tightly defined operations we have in mathematics with the everyday things we do with apples and oranges.

Sure, the one developed no doubt from the other, but that does not mean we should run them together.
The very point I was trying to make in my own insinuating way :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


there is a sense in this
is not random
look
if you got
10 X 0 = 10
SOMETHING x NOTHING = SOMETHING
PLANET X BIG BANG = PLANET IN SOLAR SYSTEM (BIG BANG is explosion and in that manner he is personification of nothing,0)
formula is the same whatever does we speak about numbers,words or universe
becouse if we say that 10 x 0 = 0 then we doesnt exist

You really must stop confusing words with numbers.

The rest of what you say is just plain bo**ocks (as I explained in my last post), and not worth responding to anymore.

[hajduk]

whatever you say Rosa you know that i am right

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What I do know is that you are badly confused, and something of a waste of time.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 04:50 pm
What I do know is that you are badly confused, and something of a waste of time.
YOU ALWAYS INSOLTING ME WHEN I AM RIGHT :D
that is how i know that i am right ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


YOU ALWAYS INSOLTING ME WHEN I AM RIGHT
that is how i know that i am right

In fact, you insult yourself by the rubbish you post.

[spartan]

what the fuck is this arguement all about? it is like in 1984 where if you believe hard enough that 2+2=5 it will be 5&#33; the fact is if you have 10 and you add 0 to that 10 you still have 10 because nothing (i.e. o) was added to it&#33; i mean what is the problem? am i missing something here? or have i missed something? please tell me if i have?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan, do not get your knickers in a twist over Hajduk&#39;s pseudo-problem.

And zero is not the same as nothing.

[spartan]

but they both add up to the same thing which is nothing or zero.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nothing and zero are not the same.

If you think so, go on, try and add nothing. What are you going to do? Wave an empty hand, or bag, or box?

It is tantamount to not adding at all.

But it is very easy to do this:

1 + 0 = 0

[spartan]

oh right now i understand. i am sorry Rosa i must have had a mental block or something silly me :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No problem; you are not alone --- this is a very common confusion.

That is not to put you down; humanity has been thinking along these confused lines now for well over 2000 years.

It is connected with the fetishisation of language in class society (I will be posting an Essay on this next year sometime): the tendency to treat all words as the names of something or other.

[The products of the relation between human beings (words) become fetishised, so that what had once been an expression of the relation between human being is now confused as a relation between things, or as those things themselves -- they become identified with objects in the world; or they actually become those objects, and are thus imbued with magical powers. To paraphrase Marx on money.]

So, &#39;Nothing&#39; is taken to be the name of, well what? The only candidate seems to be zero.

But, if we look at how we actually use these words in material reality, in practical activity, instead of allowing a false, fetishised picture to dominate our thought, it soon becomes obvious where the truth lies.

So &#39;multiplying by nothing&#39; is in effect not multiplying at all.

Whereas multiplying by zero is to do what I illustrated above.

[By the way, the Hegelian dialectic is based on a similar crass error (a similar fetishisation of language).

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class...]

[Social Scum]

I can see why Hajduk attributes the word "Nothing" to the number 0. This seems to be an acceptable variable, though I would personally never use it. A more appropriate variable would be an actual variable :lol:. Such as:

n x 0 = 0

The number 0 could be called "nothing", however, when speaking about materials such as apples. If you have 0 apples, you have no apples, for instance. If you have 1 apple, you have some apples, thus "something".

I&#39;m not the biggest math wiz in the world, so if I&#39;m incorrect please indicate this and help me out. :)

[Social Scum]

Hajduk:

10 x 0 = 0. This means, in words: Ten, no times, is Zero.

Any number has the same meaning. 20 x 0 = 0, because Twenty NO times equals Zero. NO TIMES is the keyword here, as multiplication is one number times another.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


I can see why Hajduk attributes the word "Nothing" to the number 0. This seems to be an acceptable variable, though I would personally never use it. A more appropriate variable would be an actual variable . Such as:

Well he does so because he is confused.

Nothing can&#39;t be the same as zero; if it were then &#39;10&#39; would be &#39;1Nothing&#39;&#33;

Now, even you fail use &#39;zero&#39; and &#39;nothing&#39; interchangably, for you have to speak of &#39;no apples&#39; not &#39;nothing apples&#39;.

Sure you can speak of &#39;some apples&#39;, but here &#39;some&#39; is not a number.

If you think it is, then what number is it? Two, five, ten...?

So, once more, please stop feeding Hajduk&#39;s confusion by trying to equate the quantifiers (i.e., &#39;something&#39;, &#39;nothing&#39;, &#39;everything&#39;) with numbers.

In mathmatics we have rules for handling numbers, but we do not have rules for this: "Nothing x everything = Most things".

And it is not hard to see why -- for the reasons I have given above, and in previous posts in this thread.

And thankyou for this:

Hajduk:

10 x 0 = 0. This means, in words: Ten, no times, is Zero.


Any number has the same meaning. 20 x 0 = 0, because Twenty NO times equals Zero. NO TIMES is the keyword here, as multiplication is one number times another.

But I gave a detailed explanation him earlier, which he just ignored (so he will ignore yours too); here it is again:


OK, here is the solution to Hajduk&#39;s &#39;problem&#39;:

Multiplication is shorhand for addition.

So, + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 x 5 = 5

1 x 5 tells us we have repeated the addition operation five times.

Hence + 1 + 1 = 1 x 2 = 2, and thus 1 on its own is just +1 or 1 X 1 = 1

In that case 1 x 0 tells that no addition operation has been carried out, so 1 x 0 = 0.

The same is the case with 10 x 0; that tells us no addition has been carried out, and thus that 10 x 0 = 0.

Recall that 10 = + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 itself, which is 10 x 1.

So 10 x 0 is also + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 +0 + 0 = 0

Now if you have ten apples, that is just +1 apple ten times:

+ 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple + 1 apple

In that case you can &#39;multiply&#39; one apple by ten (if that is taken to be shorthand for the above).

But, if that is so, you cannot &#39;muliply&#39; ten apples by zero, or rather, if you do, all you will have is this (but, English grammar requires the substantive &#39;apple&#39; to be plural in the case of &#39;zero apples&#39;):

+ 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples+ 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples + 0 apples.

I.e., no apples ten times, which is still no apples.

Hope that shows you Hajduk why your &#39;problem&#39; was a pseudo-problem.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 09, 2007 08:32 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein &#064; September 09, 2007 08:32 pm) Social:


I can see why Hajduk attributes the word "Nothing" to the number 0. This seems to be an acceptable variable, though I would personally never use it. A more appropriate variable would be an actual variable . Such as:

Well he does so because he is confused.

Nothing can&#39;t be the same as zero; if it were then &#39;10&#39; would be &#39;1Nothing&#39;&#33;

Now, even you fail use &#39;zero&#39; and &#39;nothing&#39; interchangably, for you have to speak of &#39;no apples&#39; not &#39;nothing apples&#39;.

Sure you can speak of &#39;some apples&#39;, but here &#39;some&#39; is not a number.

If you think it is, then what number is it? Two, five, ten...?

So, once more, please stop feeding Hajduk&#39;s confusion by trying to equate the quantifiers (i.e., &#39;something&#39;, &#39;nothing&#39;, &#39;everything&#39;) with numbers.

In mathmatics we have rules for handling numbers, but we do not have rules for this: "Nothing x everything = Most things".

And it is not hard to see why -- for the reasons I have given above, and in previous posts in this thread. [/b]

I see this now, many many many thanks for stopping me from parading around with such a theory. As I said, I&#39;m not a genius on Mathematics over here, :P

Though I do have one statement.


Rosa
for you have to speak of &#39;no apples&#39; not &#39;nothing apples&#39;.

That&#39;s simply me making sense of the statement "nothing" and "no", in which "no" means the same thing but is grammatically correct.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


That&#39;s simply me making sense of the statement "nothing" and "no", in which "no" means the same thing but is grammatically correct.

Maybe so, but it is logically defective.

Now, you could say &#39;No apple is an orange&#39;, and mean &#39;There is nothing which if it is an apple it is also an orange", but "nothing apple" makes no sense at all.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by Rosa
you could say &#39;No apple is an orange&#39;, and mean &#39;There is nothing which if it is an apple it is also an orange"

You&#39;re confusing context. You assume that I think "no" is equivalent to "nothing", which is obviously not true and can be used in many ways besides a substitute for "nothing", such as in rejection to a question or offer.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:22 am
And what if you mulitply nothing (0) with something (10)?
Well, based on the fact that 0 + 0 = 0, and multiplying 0 x 10 would be

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0

It would still equal 0.

[spartan]

in other words 10 zeros still leave you with zero because zeros cannot be added to each other nor can they be multiplied to each other because they alone (zero on its own) has no value?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am not confusing &#39;no&#39; and &#39;nothing&#39;, it is just that in certain contexts one can be explicated in terms of the other.

In the example I gave, they are plausibly the same, but not even I would try to argue they were in a sentence like "There is nothing to eat in the fridge".

And your arithmetic is just a shortened version of my own.

Spartan, you were doing Ok until this:


(zero on its own) has no value?

It has a value, to wit: zero.

If it had no value, mathematicians would not use it.

An empty space would be used in its place.

[spartan]

well yes of course it has a value (its own value) but i meant in relation to addition and multiplication where it is a dead end if something is multiplied with it or added to it. or its only value in addition and multiplication is that it really goes nowhere in terms of going foward or backwards.

[hajduk]

are you shore that you aint mix it up something here :D

TEN X NO TIMES = ZERO
TEN X ZERO = ZERO should be
TIMES X NO TIMES = TIMES should be

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


are you shore that you aint mix it up something here

TEN X NO TIMES = ZERO
TEN X ZERO = ZERO should be
TIMES X NO TIMES = TIMES should be

This has already been answered. Any more of this repetiton will be treated as trolling, and deleted.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:32 am
are you shore that you aint mix it up something here :D

TEN X NO TIMES = ZERO
TEN X ZERO = ZERO should be
TIMES X NO TIMES = TIMES should be
I just said that, if your answering to me. Anything times zero is zero. You are now contradicting all of your former opinion, acting as if it hasn&#39;t changed as to avoid admitting you were wrong. You said before, that "Ten times zero equals ten". Now you are saying we&#39;re wrong and just repeating what we just said. If you don&#39;t believe me, look at your first post.

Contradicting yourself, just admit...

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:54 pm
in other words 10 zeros still leave you with zero because zeros cannot be added to each other nor can they be multiplied to each other because they alone (zero on its own) has no value?
Zero has a value: the value is known as "Zero" :lol:

But Zero represents the number before 1, which is where you would begin when counting materials and the like, and when labeling in chronological order ("I scored 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd, and so on. The first place in a race isn&#39;t 0th...). Therefore, if you add nothing and nothing you get nothing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Social, stop encouraging him.

I have already had to delete another of his inane posts.

He does not listen to anyone, and blithely carries on as if nothing had been said in response.

I spent well over half an hour the other day writing out a solution to his pseudo-problem (most of which time was spent trying to be painfully clear, so even he could follow it), but it went right over his head, and he just repeated the same old nonsense.

And I am not the only one he does this to.

[spartan]

how did hajduk start all this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Goodness knows&#33;

He began with this inane &#39;calculation&#39; of his in a thread in Philosophy on the &#39;is/ought&#39; fallacy -- would you believe&#33;

I split this off, so that the other thread was not de-railed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk, I am deleting all your spam/troll posts.

[Social Scum]

Rosa, I&#39;ll get around to this before I forget.

You once said that zero has a value.

You are kind of right and kind of wrong, it turns out.

You said:


Mathematicians wouldn&#39;t use it if it didn&#39;t have a value.

You are quite right, but here. Zero&#39;s value is this: nothing. Mathematicians use it to identify nothing as a number.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


You once said that zero has a value.

You are kind of right and kind of wrong, it turns out.

Zero&#39;s value is this: nothing. Mathematicians use it to identify nothing as a number

It can&#39;t be nothing, as I explaned earlier.

If it were nothing then 101 would be the same as 11.

In both cases nothing separates these two ones.

And the values of zero alters all the time.

So in 101 it stands for zero tens.

In 1011, for zero hundreds.

In 1^0, 2^0, 3^0, etc., the whole lot stand for 1.

0&#33; also is 1.

Do I need to go on?

[Saint Street Revolution]

Zero is simply a placeholder in the contexts you use them, Rosa. Social&#39;s got it on the nose.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Saint:


Zero is simply a placeholder in the contexts you use them, Rosa. Social&#39;s got it on the nose.

It can&#39;t be merely a placeholder.

A placeholder for what?

And that cannot be &#39;nothing&#39; for the reasons I outlined above.

1000001 would be the same as 11, with nothing separating those ones, if zero were a placeholder for nothing.

And what is it a placeholder for in power notation?

1^0 = 2^ 0 = 3^ 0 = ... n^0 = 1

And why do we ban this in mathematics:

n/0 = ???

If it were merely a placeholder we would not need to ban it.

And when we argue that 1/n -> 0, as n -> infinity, does this really begin to disappear? It would have to if zero were nothing.

And in binary notation, when we see this : 10, we know its value is 2. If zero were nothing, in binary 10 would be 1.

Need I go on?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hajduk, I am still deleting all your spam troll posts, so do not even bother wasting your time tryng to post any.

[Social Scum]

A placeholder for what?

To serve as a place, in the most basic sense I could put it. Two, three, four, five, six digit numbers (and so on) are divided in this sense:

Ones / Tens / Hundreds / Thousands

and so on, it is a rule of place value. When 0 is placed in any of these spaces, it is a shorthand for either tens, hundreds, or thousands (in this diagram&#39;s case) which is why when you subtract with a four digit number and borrow one and take a 1 and put it on a zero to make TEN, not one, for place value is not direct value.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


To serve as a place, in the most basic sense I could put it. Two, three, four, five, six digit numbers (and so on) are divided in this sense:

Yes I got that, but if zero is nothing then my objections still stand.

So, while I do not deny it is a placeholder in the way you say, what exactly do you suppose it signifies in such places? Nothing?

If it signified nothing, why use it? And if it did 0.0000001 would be the same as:

Nothing.NothingNothingNothingNothingNothingNothing 1,

which would thus be the same as .1

And it can&#39;t mean &#39;nothing in the tenths column&#39;, etc, for there is not nothing in the tenths coulmn, there is a &#39;0&#39; in the tenths column&#33;

The problem here is that in ordinary language &#39;nothing&#39; and &#39;zero&#39; can often mean the same, but not always, or even typically.

If you said you have zero coins in your pocket, that would not imply your pocket contains nothing, that it is empty -- for you could have all sorts of other things in there too.

The reason for this is that the word &#39;nothing&#39; in ordinary language (and logic) works in rather complex ways -- we call it a quantifier. Many jokes trade on that complexity (by treating it as a name), just as many bogus &#39;philosophical&#39; theses are based on it, too (starting in the west with Parmenides and ending with Heidegger, at least) -- treating is as the name of, well, what?

Zero works far more simply, denoting the order of an exponent, i.e., the number of times something has been done, or the number of times something happens, or appears in a list or in a count, etc.

You are stuggling here because you are mixing these two up.

&#39;Nothing&#39; is not the name of anything since it is not a name, but &#39;zero&#39; is the name of the number 0.

[Social Scum]

So, while I do not deny it is a placeholder in the way you say, what exactly do you suppose it signifies in such places? Nothing?

No. In modern place value the zero pertains to the place it is in (Hundreds = 100, thus the zero stands in that spot) and is written as a zero to be the shortened version. For example,

Using your method of the number zero, the number 120,879 would look like this:

121000,800709

which is obviously not correct. 0 stands for something different.

This speaking in place value. You don&#39;t seem to grasp there is multiple uses for the number.


And it can&#39;t mean &#39;nothing in the tenths column&#39;, etc, for there is not nothing in the tenths coulmn, there is a &#39;0&#39; in the tenths column&#33;

It symblifies 10 in the Tenths column. In the same context, if the number 1 was in that spot it would stand for 11, for 2 it would be 12, 3 would equate to 13, and so on and so forth.


&#39;Nothing&#39; is not the name of anything since it is not a name, but &#39;zero&#39; is the name of the number 0.

It doesn&#39;t stand for "nothing" in place value. But in the method of counting materials such as apples, as this thread started, it stands for just that, "nothing".

[spartan]

Remember zero does have a value how do we know when something is in the hundreds or thousands thats right when a zero is added on the end. Case in point 100 times 10 equals 1000 do you see the extra zero on the end on the thousand&#33; And SS you dont say "i have nothing apples" you say "i have zero apples&#33;" just like if you had one apple you would say "i have one apple" and the same goes for two, three, etc.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


No. In modern place value the zero pertains to the place it is in (Hundreds = 100, thus the zero stands in that spot) and is written as a zero to be the shortened version. For example,

Using your method of the number zero, the number 120,879 would look like this:

121000,800709

I am sorry, but nothing I have said about zero implies what you say.

And this is the reverse of the truth:


You don&#39;t seem to grasp there is multiple uses for the number.

I have gone out of my way to show how varied the use of zero is, and other numbers.

But, you just want to make it the same as &#39;nothing&#39;.

So, in pointing at me, there are three fingers pointed back at you: you are the one who says it has one meaning: nothing.


It symblifies 10 in the Tenths column. In the same context, if the number 1 was in that spot it would stand for 11, for 2 it would be 12, 3 would equate to 13, and so on and so forth.

What has that got to do with your claim that zero is the same as nothing?


It doesn&#39;t stand for "nothing" in place value. But in the method of counting materials such as apples, as this thread started, it stands for just that, "nothing".

It can&#39;t stand for nothing in counting apples, for you don&#39;t have nothing when counting even no apples. You have a table, or a room, or an orchard, or a field...

Unless, of course, you think the rest of the universe has disappeared. Then you might have nothing.

Once more, you are confusing names with a quantifiers.

[Social Scum]

It can&#39;t stand for nothing in counting apples, for you don&#39;t have nothing when counting even no apples. You have a table, or a room, or an orchard, or a field...

I&#39;m counting apples, not all the objects in the universe.


I have gone out of my way to show how varied the use of zero is, and other numbers.

Just as I have. You say I have done nothing but try to make it equivalent to nothing, which is obviously untrue from my statements of "you don&#39;t seem to grasp there is multiple uses for the number" (because you simply try to put the word &#39;nothing&#39; in all the examples I have given to justify my argument) and my example on place value.

[Social Scum]

What has that got to do with your claim that zero is the same as nothing?

Never once did I say that was my argument, nor is it. I am trying to show you that there is MORE THAN ONE use of the number zero and that one of them is counting a certain material&#39;s multitude, and when you have none you have zero.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


I&#39;m counting apples, not all the objects in the universe.

But you still have not got nothing.


Just as I have. You say I have done nothing but try to make it equivalent to nothing, which is obviously untrue from my statements of "you don&#39;t seem to grasp there is multiple uses for the number" (because you simply try to put the word &#39;nothing&#39; in all the examples I have given to justify my argument) and my example on place value.

But then you spoil it all by trying to argue that zero apples is the same as nothing.

If &#39;zero&#39; or &#39;zero apples&#39; (or &#39;zero whatever&#39;) meant &#39;nothing&#39;, you could argue this way:

1) Nothing works faster than Solpadeine (on headaches)

2) Nothing is the same as zero tablets

3) So, zero tablets work faster than Solpadeine.

4) Hence, I&#39;ll take zero tablets, and save myself some money.

Now that would work if Nothing were a name and not a quantifier.

But nothing works in a more complex way.

http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Logic/Logic21.htm

[Social Scum]

But you still have not got nothing.

Of course not. But I don&#39;t have any apples, the object in question right now&#33; Argue with relevance, please.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


But I don&#39;t have any apples, the object in question right now&#33; Argue with relevance, please.

I am happy to see you have now dropped all that ridiculous stuff about zero apples being the same as nothing.

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 12, 2007 11:30 pm
Social:


But I don&#39;t have any apples, the object in question right now&#33; Argue with relevance, please.

I am happy to see you have now dropped all that ridiculous stuff about zero apples being the same as nothing.
Wow, this is almost as repetitve and pointless as hajduk.

I never once said that zero is the same thing as nothing, all the time, 24/7, its always equal, blah blah blah, I never said it. Though in certain uses it equates to: nothing. It has various uses such as a symbolic placeholder, but when actually counting, mathematicians identify zero as the number value of "nothing" or "absense of the material in question".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


I never once said that zero is the same thing as nothing, all the time, 24/7, its always equal, blah blah blah, I never said it. Though in certain uses it equates to: nothing. It has various uses such as a symbolic placeholder, but when actually counting, mathematicians identify zero as the number value of "nothing" or "absense of the material in question".

Well, as I have shown, in the few uses you allow it cannot be the same as nothing.

You need to show where my objections go wrong.

And I question whether any mathematician does what you say.

After all, I am just reporting to you views mathematicians have been aware of since at least the days of Blaise Pascal, who argued along the same lines as me.

In fact, I have pinched one or two of his arguments.

And as far as repetiton goes, I feel the same as you, about your posts.

[Social Scum]

Why did I not think of it before? DR. MATH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Dr. Math&#39;s analysis on the difference between zero and nothing (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52387.html)

There is indeed an equivalence between zero and nothing when speaking of materials and objects to be counted. If you have 0 apples, you have no apples (which we already went through).

And in many other ways to use zero (as I already said) it is indeed a number with a valid value, and sometimes symbolic to a larger number.

[Social Scum]

Also, here is an article on Symbolic Logic (http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/symbolic_logic.html).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, this guy treats nothing as the empty set, which makes nothing into the name of that set, inviting all the problems I mentioned earlier.

He does not need to do that; the empty set is fine by itself.


There is indeed an equivalence between zero and nothing when speaking of materials and objects to be counted. If you have 0 apples, you have no apples (which we already went through).

Well, we have been through this already.

You need to stop repeating tired old assertions and show where my arguments go wrong.

[Thanks for the links, but as part of my PhD I had to study logic to MPhil level, and I also have a mathematics degree.]

[Social Scum]

In essentials it seems we both agree with each other in terms and are simply repeating assertions over and over again. We both agree that zero is not nothing.

Btw, that&#39;s very impressive. What school did you attend?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Social:


Btw, that&#39;s very impressive. What school did you attend?

Do you mean University?

[Social Scum]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 13, 2007 12:41 am
Social:


Btw, that&#39;s very impressive. What school did you attend?

Do you mean University?
Yes, "school" is the general term for high, middle, elementary, college, university, all that, yes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I went to Leeds University for both my degress, and the Open University for my mathematics degree.

More than that I will not say.