Does 0 count as an imaginary unit?

I mean 0i, so yeah

>>8926860
Trivial case

The neutral element can always be considered whatever it needs to be considered.

no zero is a jewish myth used to keep the white man down..

ever notice why (((they))) keep saying how muslims and poos invented zero?

>>8927186
consider suicide unironically

>>8928324
You replied to twelve-hour-old bait, without sageing, to say just that?

0 is an element of every set.

is 0 positive or negative? real or imaginary? whole number or fraction? perhaps it is all of them.

(if 0 being a fraction confuses you, consider that 0 can be written as 0/n for any n>0 or n<0, which is something no [other] whole number can do)

>>8929311
False.

>>8929482
>is 0 positive or negative
neither

> real or imaginary?
both

>whole number or fraction?
It's a whole number. Fractions are just a certain way of writing numbers, so 0 can be a fraction.

>(if 0 being a fraction confuses you, consider that 0 can be written as 0/n for any n>0 or n<0, which is something no [other] whole number can do)
So what? Any whole number can still be written as a fraction.

>>8926860
well it can be considered imaginary if you want, but it can't be considered a unit.

>>8929482
It's an identity arrow.

>>8926860
> Does 0 count as an imaginary unit?

The complex number 0 is both imaginary and real at the same time.

The word "imaginary unit" is usually used exclusively to refer to the number i only. Correspondingly, the "real unit" is 1.

>>8929482
>is 0 positive or negative? real or imaginary? whole number or fraction? perhaps it is all of them.

It could be confusing to call 0 a "fraction", because people expect fractions to be of the form "p/q" where p and q are integers, and q is non-zero.

If you really want to get the word "fraction" in there, you can say: "0 is a rational number that is equal to the fraction 0/q where q is a non-zero integer".

>>8929538
(1,1)

>>8926860
unit? no

>>8929550
>p/q where p and q are integers and q is nonzero

I didn't know 0 wasn't an integer.

>>8929311
u on some dumb

>>8929311
Consider the set of numbers you can multiply by a real number to get 5.
Then consider necking yourself

>>8926860

0 isn't a unit in C or Im(C) = { ai | a in R }

suppose there exists q in either set s.t. 0q = 1.
too bad 0q = 0

>>8928326
Newfags don't know what sage or noko is when someone (can't remember his name, I think he played Ripley in Alien) removed e-mail field.

>>8929767
Were you trying to get at something?

>>8929888
No he's defining a rational number and q cannot be 0 otherwise you get a divide by 0 error. You can find that definition online.
>>8929311
Consider the set {2}