How did mathcucks decide that zero is a positive number?

What are you on about you fucking mongoloid?

>>8773724
I keked out loud.

How they decide any number is any number - Symbol-based tautology.

zero is both positive and negative

>>8773792
Therefore making it negative.

(+)(-)=-

>>8773722
It's not retard.

>>8773722
>>8773792
>>8773793
Zero is neither positive nor negative in most instances. Usually this is because people define the order on real numbers by x<y if and only if y-x is positive. If zero was positive then y<y would be a true statement. I think these concepts are introduced in intro to real analysis courses. In which context did you see zero being a positive number?

>>8773722
but it isn't

>>8773793

(+)(-) = ()()

>>8773722
>How did mathcucks decide that zero is a positive number?
They're retarded. Obviously 1 - 0.9... is the first positive number.

>>8773722
Shitty b8 m8

zero is an absence which implies negative

>>8773767
This. You can decide that 0 is neither positive and negative, or both positive and negative, it doesn't matter as long as the tautologies surrounding the symbol are coherent with the rest.

>>8773722
zero is a absence of number

You can tend number towards 0+ or 0- but 0 isn't positive nor negative since it's basically nothing

>>8775321
>zero is a absence of number
No.

>>8773722
Define numbers however the fuck you want as long as its internally consistent.

>>8773722
the sign of zero is indeterminate, simple as that

>>8774833

:)

>>8773722
its neither positive nor negative. are you fucking retarded?

File: 4346c2caf49dd7a5e46cc34cc601155c0aa6e6e8f291b66c6b6d51ebc1d0af28.png (216KB, 446x345px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 446x345px

>>8773722
>>8774833
>>8775321
these baitposts triggered me

>>8773722
So they can say "Every number is positive or negative"
Trichotomy sucks.

But nothing is really 0. As we approach 0, we get an infinitesimally small value, so it is positive or negative.

>>8776353
From which side do you approach zero when you add -1 to 1?

>>8776373
both

>>8773792
it's NEITHER positive or negative, there's a difference

>>8773722
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sign_function

How did mathcucks decide that zero is a number?

>>8775292
Nope
>start with zero dollars, end with zero dollars

No deficit, no negative

>>8776736
you need money to make more money, so if you start with 0 you will definitely end up with minus money

>>8773722

cuz you cant have nothing sempai.

>>8776750
Saying bullshit didn't make it less bullshit

>>8776750
If you had minus money it wouldn't be zero you fucking brainlet

File: 1431728522218.jpg (11KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x224px

I love the shitpost threads on this board.

>>8776485
>it's NEITHER positive NOR negative, there's a difference

If you have zero things you don't have less than no things, you have no things, therefore zero is positive.

Zero is both non-positive and non-negative.

It's really actually pretty simple, all numbers that are negative are not positive, all negative numbers are less than positive numbers, all negative numbers are less than zero, therefore zero is positive.

>>8777766
post gave me a brain tumor

>>8773955
8===D ( . Y . )

>>8773722
Lets say 0 is positive, we know + * - = -, but -1 * 0 = 0, then 0 would be a negative, then fuck you op

What century does the year 2000 belong to? A century is defined as a timespan of 100 years. When did the first century begin? Year 1 was the first year of the first century. All of year 1 and all of the following 99 years are all part of the first century. 1 + 99 = 100. All of year 100 is part of the first century. Using this logic zero is a negative number. But then they had to dig up those pesky stone-bones. All of a sudden Jesus didn't materialize out of thin air on year 1 to bring forth the Murican empire. All of a sudden those bones had lives before year one. Now we need to go back before year one. What was the year before year 1, and what century did it belong to? Lets just call it the century of creation for now. It was a timespan of 100 years. if we take 100 years from year one, we end up at year negative -99. The century of creation was from year -99 to year 0, following the same logic as the next century being from year 1 to year 100. But the Murican chieftain of times past, called the Pope, did not like that. Year zero? That is not divine enough. What really happened is not known. Suspicions of a cover up about the alleged creation are rampant among conspiracy theorists. What we do know is that the year zero was wiped out of existence. The year before the first year was forever to be called the year before the first year. It is a non-number. I suspect the real reason for the cover up has to do with the fact that the first year, year number 1 was not really the first year. Year zero was the first year. But that didn't happen on earth. That happened on a singularity a long long time ago far far away. Could we know the first year, we should call it year one. But since we don't know it, any arbitrary point on the time line chosen is really a starting point, not the starting point. We start with nothing. From now to a week ago one week has passed, not one year and one week. The starting point should be zero.

>>8778591
[continued] The first century is really all of year zero and all of the following 99 years. In this scenario zero is seen as a positive number. The status quo is to see it as a negative one. One reason for this may have been the Murican chieftains desire to obfuscate understanding and reason among the people. Think about how elegant a decade looks when all of the years are the same length. 0 to 9 as opposed to 1 to 10. But no. We have to think of years as special. So year zero is not allowed to exist and as a consequence the number zero is seen by the public as a negative one. This is simply not the case. Logically negativity is a special case of positive, countable items. Zero is neither an item borrowed nor an item lent. But it certainly is more the general case of a positive number than the special case of a negative one.

>>8773722
XXX can't go wrong while playing basketball and listening to him

>>8773724
>using that as an insult
>ignorant to the fact that the Mongols literally fucked like everyone they encountered and there is a strong possibility you have Mongolian genetics

I can't take this post seriously OP, considering that it has a XXXTENTACTION attachment.

>>8773722
>0^0=1
No it doesn't you piece of shit