Question: What is closest to zero.

[old.Tohtori]

I was wondering, what is the closest number to a zero, incuding ALL the decimals?

 

[Jupitus]

I can't do superscript here to denote recurring decimals....


Some would answer nought point nought recurring with a one on the end...





Personally, I usually refer to it as the size of Deebs willy................





in nanometers!!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Good answer, the willy that is

But the thing is, you can always add a zero somewhere in there...so..err...doesn't it make the number, technically, zero?

 

[oblimov]

is a google not the largest number ever or something like that? so maybe theres a smallest number version ?

 

[Louster]

No. The idea is you have an infinite amount of zeros and then one 1, but the point is that the question is useless. "Including ALL the decimals" doesn't make any sense unless you're talking about limited storage variables or something - there is (at least conceptually) no limit to the number of decimal places you can use.
Also, as long as you have one 1, then it's not "close" to zero, as zero is an absolute.

 

[Insane]

I was wondering, what is the closest number to a zero, incuding ALL the decimals?

its the number 1

because its got ALL the decimals in it

 

[gmloki]

Why you asking Totohri

 

[pcg79]

you cant have a number close to 0.

using a simple mathematical proof, say you have a number 'a' which we'll assume is the smallest number close to 0 and less than 1.

then if you take (a + 1) / 2; well this is less than a, but greater than 0. so the statement 'a is the smallest number' is false, and so a cant exist.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Just wondering, asking for other opinions on things and such.

 

[Louster]

you cant have a number close to 0.

using a simple mathematical proof, say you have a number 'a' which we'll assume is the smallest number close to 0 and less than 1.

then if you take (a + 1) / 2; well this is less than a, but greater than 0. so the statement 'a is the smallest number' is false, and so a cant exist.

Um. If a is less than 1, then (a+1)/2 is greater than a: if a>b, and you do a+b/2, then the result will be smaller than a and larger than b - it's an average of the two values.

You don't even need the +1, though - a/2 will still be greater than 0, as you can't make 0 by multiplcation or division, unless you're multiplying by 0 or dividing by infinity.

 

[Deebs]

I can't do superscript here to denote recurring decimals....


Some would answer nought point nought recurring with a one on the end...





Personally, I usually refer to it as the size of Deebs willy................





in nanometers!!!

Yes and when mine is closest to 0 and your's is 0 im the winner \o/

now please fuckoff

 

[Bodhi]

</pedant>


Zero isn't a number.


That is all.

 

[Louster]

</pedant>


Zero isn't a number.


That is all.

Hooray for Google.

 

[Cyfr]

Question: What is nothing?

 

[nath]

Yes it is a number. It's part of the set of Natural numbers (that include zero) part of the set of Integers, part of the set of Real numbers, and part of the set of Complex numbers. I'm sure I'm missing a few sets, but the fact is it is a number.

 

[Louster]

Yes it is a number. It's part of the set of Natural numbers (that include zero) part of the set of Integers, part of the set of Real numbers, and part of the set of Complex numbers. I'm sure I'm missing a few sets, but the fact is it is a number.

Also, if you just use the normal meaning of 'number', as in "a symbol that represents a value", then obviously it is.

 

[nath]

So basically, it's a number in pretty much every sense of the word.

 

[Bullitt]

You're all geek ass bastards.

 

[Cask]

Yes it is a number. It's part of the set of Natural numbers (that include zero) part of the set of Integers, part of the set of Real numbers, and part of the set of Complex numbers. I'm sure I'm missing a few sets, but the fact is it is a number.

^^
Nerd.

I suppose you could simplify Jup's description with:

1x10^-∞

But that only tends toward 0, it'll never reach it. If you drew a graph of y=1 then the line would cross both x=0 and the number closest to it so whatever is in between (Deebs willy, if anything) would be a value of x at some point.

Cue someone who has done some research on this to come in and kick all of our asses.

 

[fatbusinessman]

Mathematically speaking, the closest number to zero is the limit as n tends to infinity of 1/n - which is zero.

But it's a bit of a stupid question anyway, really.

 

[Clown]

The closest number to zero is zero. Can't get much closer than that, eh?

 

[Cask]

<golf clap>

 

[Bodhi]

So basically, it's a number in pretty much every sense of the word.

K then. Divide 2 by -0.


No negative.
Not divisible.
Not a number.


Before you refer me to the mathsy definition, I don't believe any subject which can prove 1=2. Every twat and his uncle knows that isn't true.

 

[Louster]

That "2=1" thing is just a logical fallacy owing, as it happens, directly to the confusions caused by zero. The fact is, 0 is a number - it behaves, in so far as multiplication and division goes, differently due to its nature, but it's still a number.

 

[Iceforge]

If, as suggested by poster #4, there is a socalled largest number called "google", then the number closest to zero would be

1 / google

If that makes any sense?

 

[Tom]

1, 2, 3, 4, etc are all just names we give to quantities? So 4 is actually four ones. How then do you describe four zeros?

Surely zero is a concept, rather than a number, since strictly speaking there isn't any such thing as zero? Its like people saying black is a colour, when its just an absence of light.

 

[Utini]

If, as suggested by poster #4, there is a socalled largest number called "google", then the number closest to zero would be 1 / google If that makes any sense?

Google isnt the largest number, its just a big number.
You could think of any number of crap definitions like 1/infinity blah blah, but why bother.

 

[Louster]

1, 2, 3, 4, etc are all just names we give to quantities? So 4 is actually four ones. How then do you describe four zeros?

Surely zero is a concept, rather than a number, since strictly speaking there isn't any such thing as zero? Its like people saying black is a colour, when its just an absence of light.

You're talking about Natural Numbers, which have already been mentioned and were discussed in the first link I posted. The thing is, if you go by "numbers are names of quantities" then you disallow fractions, decimal places and negative numbers, along with 0 - the point is, it's a primitive way of looking at it. Besides, defining "a quantity of something" is pretty damned abstract. And also, it's not exactly unnatural for there to be an absence of something, is it? You can easily say "There are 4 trees by your house. By mine there are none," or whatever.

Oh I just noticed:

1, 2, 3, 4, etc are all just names we give to quantities? So 4 is actually four ones. How then do you describe four zeros?

Heh, you're actually looking at it backwards. If you follow your pattern, your last statement should be "zero ones", which makes perfect sense.

 

[Tom]

But if you had no trees outside your house, then saying "there are zero trees by my house" would be meaningless, a bit like saying "there are zero purple monkeys by my house". Making that statement doesn't imply that there should be some trees, or that there ever will be, is it? I don't know

I like trees though. There are 3 outside my house

Also, are not fractions at their simplest, descriptions of quantity? Percentages are also used in this fashion?

Also, aren't negative numbers just an abstract way of saying something? I can't actually think of anything with substance that I could describe as possessing negative properties, except magnets, but even then, thats just our way of making a comparison.

I'll shut up now, before I totally embarrass myself.

 

[Mazling]

Mabye the largest number is the largest real number, that can actually be described.

K ?