Question: What is closest to zero.

[JingleBells]

Its not a google, thats a search engine, its a Googol!!!!!
A googol is 1 with 100 zeros on the end, or 10^100, its not really that large as there is a googolplex, which is 1 with a googol of zeros, or 10^googol.

As for whether zero is a number it is, as the first item on google says, its not in the standard Natural Number set, but it is an Integer. As my pure 4 a-level textbook said, 0 was probably the last number to be imagined, as you can't visualise 0 items (as proven in this thread), even negatives can be thought of in terms of owing something.

And the original question, there isn't a number near, as if you think of a number as near as possible to 0, you can still halve it, creating a number nearer.

 

[Paradroid]

I believe in the physical world, zero doesn't exist...it's a mathematical/philosophical relative term (just like time - so, no time travel peeps!).

In the real world zero is the absence of whatever it is you want to measure - similar to black being the absence of light, it's not a colour.


The closest number to zero would then be (worded in plain English):

Ten, to the power minus infinity.

 

[Paradroid]

Or, should that be:

1, to the power minus infinity?



...divided by 2!

 

[tRoG]

There is no limit on the number of decimals you can use, so it's impossible to answer.

Which leaves me thinking...

Why the hell are you all arguing about it?

 

[Tom]

Well its better than arguing about which is better; Toast, or cake.

Now there's an argument.

 

[Lazarus]

Well its better than arguing about which is better; Toast, or cake.

Now there's an argument.

sponge......obviously

 

[Cask]

Expressing the superiority of bourbons over sponge would require infinitely large coefficients.

 

[nath]

You lot seemed to miss out something interesting - if 0 is not a number, then neither is 10 or 20 etc. Think about the meaning of it - 10 is 1x10 and 0x1. 357 (magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world) is 3x100, 2x10 and 7x1. It may be a bit abstract, but a lot of you seem to be thinking that Natural numbers are just numbers. They're just one set of numbers, there are others. If you dislike 0, then you'll really hate complex numbers, i.e. i which is basically the square root of -1.



Plus, clearly cake > *

 

[Louster]

As for whether zero is a number it is, as the first item on google says, its not in the standard Natural Number set, but it is an Integer.

Hooray for Google.

Grmf. Clearly reading through the thread before replying is a passé fad.

I believe in the physical world, zero doesn't exist...it's a mathematical/philosophical relative term (just like time - so, no time travel peeps!).

In the real world zero is the absence of whatever it is you want to measure - similar to black being the absence of light, it's not a colour.

The thing is, all numbers are like that. You might as well say that all numbers are concepts, as none actually have any reality; there is no pure "2" or "3" or "x" that exists, it's always "x amount of <some noun>". With this in mind, dividing numbers into conceptual and non-conceptual, and stating that zero "doesn't really exist" serves no purpose and makes no sense. Zero is as much of a number as any other. Without it, mathematics would be either impossible or very, very basic.

 

[Louster]

Infact I think that might be the key to understanding why 0 is as much of a number as any other. When applied to "the real world", which is where the problem of "absences not really existing" comes in, it's always "x of <noun>", which explains why an absence, i.e. 0, makes sense.

Edit: Point being, more directly, that 0 isn't the absence of a number, it's the absence of whatever the numbers are referring to, insofar as real-life applicability goes.

 

[nath]

As my Quantum Computing lecturer has said - new numbers are always invented to solve problems. Initially we had the set N+ which is the set of natural numbers, not including 0. Then we needed something to represent the lack of something, so 0 was made and we got the natural numbers. Then we needed negative numbers for some reason - forget why, so we expanded the number system to Z (integers). Then we needed fractions, so it went to Q. Then there's certain numbers you can't represent with a fraction (such as pi) so we made R - the set of Real numbers.

After that, we had a problem in that we couldn't solve the square root of -1. So someone says "I know, lets invent a number that solves that, lets call it i for imaginary number". That then expanded the number system to C - complex numbers which includes the number i.

Cake rules, woooo \o/

 

[Sar]

Course it's a number - couldn't have binary without it.





Seriously though - it is a number. You can have a zero amount of something, just like you can have any specific number of something.

IE: I have 0 £100 notes in my pocket. This is 1 less than having 1 £100 note in my pocket.

Ergo it is a number.

It may not be considered a number by some people in some esoteric sense, but the fact remains that it is a mathmatical number.

 

[Tom]

Course it's a number - couldn't have binary without it.

You can easily represent binary with punch cards, which don't require numbers. Binary isn't 1's and 0's, its on's and off's.

 

[Sar]

T'was a joke ya eejit

 

[Paradroid]

...
Edit: Point being, more directly, that 0 isn't the absence of a number, it's the absence of whatever the numbers are referring to, insofar as real-life applicability goes.
...

...
In the real world zero is the absence of whatever it is you want to measure ...
...

...
Binary isn't 1's and 0's, its on's and off's.
...

When designing (again, the relative theory) we do use zero....but in reality a logical "1" is represented by approximately 5 volts of electricity (give or take a small tolerance, known as Fan-out) , and, a logical "0" is represented by approximately 0.5 volts of electricity (again, with a small tolerance)...the absence of any signal could be that your pooters fooked.

But you'll always get some kind of noise/interference - which is fundamental to there never being a zero...thermal noise that is...and on the smallest of scales, Strings vibrate.

 

[Tom]

But you'll always get some kind of noise/interference - which is fundamental to there never being a zero...thermal noise that is...and on the smallest of scales, Strings vibrate.

Tell me you're not going to start on about the Heisenburg principle now......

Oh, BTW, did you know that noise is used as a noise reduction system in CD playback? Funny how things work.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Isn't the number, closest to zero, an infinite number of zeroes added with a 1 in the end.

With this, you could say, that it is actually zero since you never can add that 1 there (because of those pesky zeroes coming in between)

But is really 0.0 the same thing as pure 0?

 

[Dillinja]

This is nothing but a variation of the 0.999 recurring = 1 threads tbh.

 

[old.Tohtori]

This is nothing but a variation of the 0.999 recurring = 1 threads tbh.

But it's not 1

Actually if people really really wanna discuss, how about telling what's the largest number...but that's almost the same....though i think someone will deny that too

 

[JBP|]

/me emails carol vorderman

she's bound to know

 

[Will]

/me emails carol vorderman

she's bound to know

Is it in the top row?

 

[pcg79]

x is a largest number

y = x + 1

oh no, x couldnt be a largest number because now, y > x !

 

[old.Tohtori]

x is a largest number

y = x + 1

oh no, x couldnt be a largest number because now, y > x !

No no, if y= x + 1 then x + 1 = y, making it larger then x.

And if x is the largest number, y = x, makig it x = x + 1

 

[Will]

No no, if y= x + 1 then x + 1 = y, making it larger then x.

And if x is the largest number, y = x, makig it x = x + 1

This is bad algebra kids, don't try to understand it...its just wrong.

 

[pcg79]

No no, if y= x + 1 then x + 1 = y, making it larger then x.

And if x is the largest number, y = x, makig it x = x + 1

are you really this stupid or are you taking the piss?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Neither, playing around discarding the rules


So i guess it's in the piss category.

 

[Louster]

When designing (again, the relative theory) we do use zero....but in reality a logical "1" is represented by approximately 5 volts of electricity (give or take a small tolerance, known as Fan-out) , and, a logical "0" is represented by approximately 0.5 volts of electricity (again, with a small tolerance)...the absence of any signal could be that your pooters fooked.

But you'll always get some kind of noise/interference - which is fundamental to there never being a zero...thermal noise that is...and on the smallest of scales, Strings vibrate.

Right but those are all beside the point. The binary thing is obviously a practical problem - there'd be no way of distinguishing whether the lack of any signal is because it's sending zeros or because it's inactive, so you end up with two signals representing the two states.
As for "there's never zero", you might as well say "there's never 1" or "there's never x" as there's always interference or ambiguity. The point is that numbers are simply abstract and idealized, and that "zero in reality" doesn't have the slightest impact on whether you consider zero a number or not.

 

[Jupitus]

There is no spoon.

 

[Paradroid]

Tell me you're not going to start on about the Heisenburg principle now......
...

...no...whatever gave you that idea?

Oh, BTW, did you know that noise is used as a noise reduction system in CD playback? Funny how things work.

(pffft) of course I do, and it has far wider applications than that (the relevance of this escapes me atm).

...
As for "there's never zero", you might as well say "there's never 1" or "there's never x" as there's always interference or ambiguity. The point is that numbers are simply abstract and idealized, and that "zero in reality" doesn't have the slightest impact on whether you consider zero a number or not.

That's what I've been saying, it's a relative concept - it doesn't actually exist. It's like distances or time - it helps us quantify and rationalise our world as we percieve it.

In mathematics & engineering we use the term neglible a lot - if the circumference of the globe is 24000 miles, does it matter that there's a tolerance of an inch or two, if we're planning to sail around it?

But if we arrive late and our ship has already sailed, then there are zero ships waiting for us in the harbour. 10 minutes earlier our ship was there, so distance and time do have an effect on the existance of zero.





....tuh! Philosophy, eh?

 

[Louster]

Okay, so are you or are you not arguing that zero is not a number? I got the impression that's what you were doing, but you're apparently in agreement with me. I'm just saying there's no real difference between 0 and any other number, and that 0 is indeed a number, and that saying "0 isn't a number" is silly.