Is 0 a positive or negative?

>>9123522
define 'positive'
define 'negative'

File: IMG_1359.jpg (23KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 240x240px

It's neutral

nil

I used to think it was both, but it turns out it's neither. The way academics defined this conventions, the positive integers are those >0, the negative stricty less than 0. So it's not that 0>0 or 0<0, so zero is neither positive nor negative.

>>9123534
>The way academics defined this conventions, the positive integers are those >0, the negative stricty less than 0.
Only in the English speaking (i.e. third) world.

It's nothing

>>9123522
No.

>>9123522
No

>>9123522
The obvious answer is neither but I suggest a game. Everyone here picks sides, either you think 0 is positive or negative. And then post properties that hold for positive (or negative) numbers that also hold for 0. The side that gets more non-trivial properties wins and gets to edit the wikipedia page for 0. I'll start.

Property: For all [math] c \in \mathbb{R}^2 [/math] the equation [math] x^2 + y^2 = c [/math] has solutions. And so does the equation [math] x^2 + y^2 = 0 [/math].

In other words, all circles with positive radius exist. But so does the circle of 0 radius. But no circle of negative radius exists, therefore 0 should be positive.

File: think.gif (2MB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 460x259px

>>9123753
>The obvious answer is neither but I suggest a game. Everyone here picks sides, either you think 0 is positive or negative. And then post properties that hold for positive (or negative) numbers that also hold for 0. The side that gets more non-trivial properties wins and gets to edit the wikipedia page for 0. I'll start.
>Property: For all c∈R2 the equation x2+y2=c has solutions. And so does the equation x2+y2=0.
>In other words, all circles with positive radius exist. But so does the circle of 0 radius. But no circle of negative radius exists, therefore 0 should be positive.

>>9123759
Hey, this is basically what we did when we had to choose if 1 was prime or not.

>>9123753
Ah, I meant [math] \mathbb{R}^+ [/math] kek.

>>9123753
negative reals and 0 both have the condition of not having two square roots

0 is barely even a number, much less positive or negative

>>9123759
negative integers and 0 are the complement of the naturals inside the integers

>>9123753
How can x and y be the same number if they are different letters?

>>9123522
It's actually imaginary

>>9123767
Sheeiiit.
Score is 1-1
Both positive and 0 have the property of having at least one square root.

Score is 2-1

>>9123775
x = y

>>9123778
0 is somehow both purely real and purely imaginary.

>>9123522
0 is positive, negative numbers dont exists, oh you, mastertroll

>>9123798
are you sure?

>>9123798
That's kind of right.

positive and negative are relative. To say negative numbers don't exist is like saying positive numbers don't exist. Numbers just don't exist physically, so I'll give you a tiny bit of credit.

>>9123799
Sure, surely, surelistic, suredome!

>>9123539
you're saying math yields different results in different languages? gtfo

>>9123804
no you retard, you were supposed to say
>I'm positive

>>9123802
.>To say negative numbers don't exist is like saying positive

Good one, now you are tryingo to troll me with existencialisms...good one.

>>9123522
There is no such thing as a negative number, you dum dum

People use the words nonnegative and such for inclusion of 0 so its not a hard fix really

>>9123522
>is 0 less than zero, or greater than zero?

>>9123816
lol how did you know I'm a Sartre fan? Did he even write about math at all? If he did, I didn't read it.

Zero is neither positive nor negative, it's not even real in that sense. It was a successful thought experiment by Greek philosophers when trying to solve mathematical problems. "Negative" numbers are also not intrinscally real, but they are relational opposites of "positive" numbers, used to denote changes of direction, depletion, etc.

>>9123522
Does taking nothing and giving nothing yield the same result?

>>9124094
Two different operations that yield the same result. Same Y for two different f(x).

File: 1478735619366.gif (204KB, 404x416px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 404x416px

>>9123522
It's nothing. Don't mind it.

>>9124094
And define taking and giving. If you mean addition+/substraction- it's not the same as multiplication*/division/ but both pairs fit well into the term "Taking" and "Giving".

It's a majorana number :^)

>>9123522
0 is not a positive number
0 is not a negative number
0 is a non-negative number
0 is a non-positive number

>>9124139
Nicely said.

Positive is defined as any number larger than 0 and negative is defined as any number smaller than 0, therefore it's neither positive or negative.

>>9123782
You can't have a base N number system if N is 0 or negative

>>9123753
>radius squared on the right of the equation
disgusting

x^2 + y^2 + c = 0 has solns for all c in R^-, hence 0 should be negative

>>9123522

0 doesn't exist.

>>9123522
0 Is just an illusion so our little minds wouldn't overheat.

>>9123522

If 0 isn't real, how can our eyes be real?

0 is non-negative you dipshits. it's a natural number. you need it to generate all other natural numbers through induction as it's the base case. if i could kill people mathematically i'd do it right now to all of you idiots who didn't read a real analysis text.

File: tmp_27053-15024809011892005030630.gif (1MB, 284x247px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 284x247px

>>9124245

File: 1503356754552.png (42KB, 655x509px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 655x509px

>>9124245

o is pretend tho..

>>9124245
Its also non positive.
And no it is not a natural number.
It is a whole number.

all integers 0 included exist in reality in an infinite fractal form (ex. 0.000000000000000001 or -0.00000000000000001 ) therefore each zero is unique in being positive or negative as the integer itself doesn't exist.

>>9123522
0 is negative because it negates the process of multiplication and addition

>>9124411
0 doesn't negate addition.
0 does negate both multiplication and division.

>>9124417
a + 0 = a

>>9124423
a+3-0=a+3.
no negation happened.

>>9124425
Define negation

>>9124428
define define

>>9124428
to make the effect of something non-existent.

>>9124432
adding 0 is like not adding anything at all so the process of adding 0 might as well be non-existent

>>9124431
>define define
to set an agreeable meaning to a certain term to prevent misunderstanding.

>>9124434
therefore 0 negated itself but didn't negate the prior addition, which is to say you claim 0 to be non-existent

>>9124438
No, 0 exists because it can affect other things like a*0 = 0 but it might as well not exist while adding it to something else

>>9124443
a^0=1. study some more math please.

>>9123522
There is no such thing as zero

>>9124445
0^0 = left to the reader's wishes

>>9124450
0^0 = 1

>>9124451
I disagree

>>9124453
provide reasoning for your disagreement.
i'll provide it this time tho, lim x>0,y>0 f(x,y)=x^y is undefined thus 0^0=/=1

>>9124461
here > means approaches and not bigger than, mb

>>9124461
>reasoning
lim x -> 0 0^x = 0 =/= 1 so 0^0 can be 0 instead of 1

>>9124461
>>9124464
Irrelevant.

lim x -> 0 0^x = 0, and lim x -> 0 x^0 = 1. Which means that ^ is discontinuous around (0, 0) no matter how you define it. Which means that limiting behavior cannot inspire the value of 0^0 one way or another.

(The correct value is that 0^0 = 1 for reasons that have nothing to do with any limits.)

>>9124475
Empty products are an ultimately arbitrary convention

>>9124481
They are as un-arbitrary as can be. It follows directly from the monoid axioms.

>>9124486
>monoid
wew

>(2^3)^4 = 2^(3^4)

>>9124486
Semigroups are more fundamental than monoids

>>9124486
>>9124505
>what is associativity

>captcha: nobledowner

>>9124509
I think his point was that in the free monoid generated by a set the empty string is the identity element, but of course one could generate a free semigroup with the set as well and basically not lose anything

>>9124503
I am talking about the multiplicative monoid, and the monoid of sequences of numbers under concatenation.

The product of a sequence of numbers is defined as the fold homomorphism onto the multiplication operator. That means that product(A) * product(B) = product(A ++ B), where A and B are sequences of numbers and ++ denotes concatenation.

That in term means that product(A) = product(A ++ []) = product(A) * product([]), and thus that product([]) = 1, where 1 is the identity element of the multiplicative monoid.

>>9124436
define to
define set
define an
define agreeable
define meaning
define a
define certain
define term
define prevent
define misunderstanding
define .

>>9124512
>but of course one could generate a free semigroup with the set as well and basically not lose anything
Certainly. But that doesn't mean that the relation between the identity element of the free monoid and the identity element of the multiplicative monoid is arbitrary.

File: 1373309929845.jpg (51KB, 380x400px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 380x400px

Every negative number can be expressed as a positive number, with the exception of zero. This makes zero a positive number. Look up

http://mashable.com/2015/09/14/terrence-howard-one-times-one/#EQh1xO80V5qc

>>9124529
define define

>>9125022
State the meaning of.

>>9123522
>>9123524
For a given real number n:
n is positive if n > 0.
n is negative if n < 0.
0 is neither positive nor negative.

> Is 0 even or odd?

>>9125128
>> Is 0 even or odd?

even

let k be a natural number;
an odd number is any that can be written in the form of 2k + 1
an even number is any that can be written in the form of 2k

>>9125138
> let k be a natural number

>>9125138
>let k be a natural number;
>an odd number is any that can be written in the form of 2k + 1
>an even number is any that can be written in the form of 2k
so its only even if the natural numbers include 0.

>>9125143
>>9125142

is 1 odd or even?

>>9125143
So reflexive.

>>9125138
let k = 2
then 0 is not even, because it cannot be written in the form 2*k=4

>>9125263
not how it works

What if the equation changed some properties into functions? And 0 behaved like a position before a negative.

>>9123753
What if the equation changed some properties into functions? And 0 behaved like a position before a negative.

>>9123522
The real question: is it an oh! or a [math]zer[/math]oh!

>the word ZER means to be taken as "something beyoned the imagination, explaination, description..."
>ZER, its someone who'z different, kinda' xtreme in his doin's / thinkin's/ workin's
>ZER, the word that can x-plain any damn situation/ person/ act/ thing.
>- trouble: "I guess I'm really zered now"
>- dismay: "Oh, zer!"
>- aggresion: "don't zer me, buddy!"
>- difficulty: "I don't understand this zer question"
>- "That was a ZERYfying experiance"

>>9123522
Under IEEE 754 it can be one or the other.

>>9125138
So -1 isn't odd?

>>9123558
You're nothing

>>9123534
How is the thread still going after this? There is only one answer and this is it.

>>9123539
Stfu and kys my main man

>>9125138
2 is odd?

0 is pretty much a theoretical number. I don't think you can find an actual 0 value in nature. As of right right, its just a tool for us to make our lives easier (sets, problem solving, measurements, etc...)

File: 1501733581399.jpg (44KB, 480x394px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x394px

>>9124388
>it's a whole number

all whole numbers that are non negative are natural numbers

>>9123522
it's a reddit number

>>9125308
well he's written it in wrong order

>>9123522
It is both a positive and negative number based on the only possible solution to the equation x = -x