1.0   How are zero apples different than zero oranges?

    The mathematicians routinely argue that zero is a number:

    " The natural numbers are to be thought of as the 'counting numbers.' ... i.e. the
       numbers you'd use to start counting a bunch of objects.  You wouldn't use 0 to
       start counting, because if there are zero objects, you don't count them...
       Someone could ask "how many pork chops do you have?," and then you could
       answer with any "counting number," or if you don't have any pork chops, you tell
       them 'zero.'  With all this in mind, I would still say that zero is definitely a number." [1]

    " 0 (zero) is both a number and a numerical digit used to represent that number in
       numerals...Zero is an even number...Zero is a number which quantifies a count or
       an amount of null size; that is, if the number of your brothers is zero, that means
       the same thing as having no brothers, and if something has a weight of zero, it has
       no weight. If the difference between the number of pieces in two piles is zero, it
       means the two piles have an equal number of pieces. Before counting starts, the
       result can be assumed to be zero; that is the number of items counted before you
       count the first item and counting the first item brings the result to one. And if there
       are no items to be counted, zero remains the final result...While mathematicians all
       accept zero as a number, some non-mathematicians would say that zero is not a
       number, arguing that one cannot have zero of something. Others hold that if one
       has a bank balance of zero, one has a specific quantity of money in that account,
       namely none. It is that latter view which is accepted by mathematicians and most
       others." [2]

    So how is no weight different than no length or no shape? How would we distinguish zero pork chops from zero pigs or
    zero brothers from zero sisters? Clearly, one brother is qualitatively different than one sister. It is all these qualitative
    distinctions that escape the mathematicians. They are not interested in the physical world. They are just interested in
    counting for counting's sake! They mix apples with oranges and continue counting. The problem with zero anything is
    that we cannot distinguish it from anything else. It is a qualitative issue and not one of quantity. My argument again
    reinforces that Mathematics is not the language of Physics.

    However, if the word number means 'to count,' zero is definitely not a number:

    "A number is an abstract idea used in counting and measuring." [3]

    As soon as you move your pinkie, you have at least counted up to one. There is no such thing as counting up to nothing
    as some folks believe:

    " Zero is a count of nothing." [4]

    Again, this shows the importance of defining the crucial words. Before the idiots of Mathematics say that zero is a number
    they must define the word number. And if they say that counting includes the counting of nothing, they sure as hell will be
    required to define counting!

    It could be argued that 10 dreams is no different than 0 dreams. There is nothing to show for either one. Counting concepts
    such as hops or strokes means we are counting different locations occupied by an object. We are, in effect, counting the
    number of frames a film has.  But when we count discrete, standalone objects there is definitely a difference.  For the
    remainder of this page, I will use the term number only as a synonym of positive integer.

    A good analogy to understand the difference between zero and numbers is the relation between space and matter. Zero is to
    space what numbers are to objects. Only when we have no objects do we have zero or empty space. Zero is qualitatively
    different from numbers as space is to physical objects. There 'is' only one space. There are countless atoms trapped within
    it. In like manner, there is only one zero (which applies to anything). There any number of numbers that you wish to imagine.

    The devil's advocate now says that there is only one 1 and only one 2.

    That's not the point! The point is that the numbers are part of one set -- the set of numbers -- and zero is in a set of its own.
    Let's look at some of the obvious differences between positive integers and zero:

    •        If a number is added to or subtracted from another, the result is different than
    the original number. This is not true with zero. Whether you add or subtract zero
    from a number, you always end up with the same number. This doesn't happen
    with numbers.

    •        You can divide by any number. You can't divide by zero. (it is deemed to be
    undefined.)

    •        If you multiply any number by zero you get zero. This is not true of any number.

    Evidently, zero is in a category all of its own. It differs significantly from numbers.


    2.0   What are the reasons the mathematicians give for why zero should be considered a number?

    Some mathematicians believe that a number is that which has properties:

    " to get to the real numbers, we need to add multiplicative inverses...it follows the field
       axioms for addition + and multiplication X...the property of completeness" [5]

    This allows others to claim that zero is a number because you can perform arithmetical operations with it.

    " Zero is a number; in fact, it is a real number.  It is on the number line right between
       1 and -1. You can add, subtract, and multiply with 0 and get real answers. You can
       divide numbers into zero and get a real answer, zero...You can't say anything like
       that about infinity.  It is not on the number line and you can't do computations with
       it." [6]

    [The mathematician is saying that zero is more like a number than infinity. The
     mathematicians don't realize that whether zero is a number is not a matter of degrees.
     It is a black or white type of issue.]

    Moore lists other popular reasons the mathematicians consider zero a number.

    •        it is 'positive'

    "  Zero is also very much alike to the other natural numbers in that it is a nonnegative
       integer." [7]

    This claim is false. If Moore would have taken the trouble to look up the word integer, he would find that 0 is an integer
    by definition, which it turns out was made by ignorant mathematicians who never took English 101. An integer is
    defined as a number that is not accompanied by a fraction or decimal. Of course, if zero is not even a number Moore's
    argument is moot.

    •        it is weird

    " The possible weirdness of zero pales in comparison to the weirdness of negative
       numbers." [8]

    This argument is irrelevant for two reasons. Again, the degree of weirdness is not a scientific criterion to usher zero in
    as a number. Then, negative numbers are not numbers either. The negative sign is just an accounting gimmick. It has
    nothing to do with numbers.

    •        can't add it to anything

    " anything plus zero stays the same" [9]

    This confirms that zero is not a number. You can't do that with numbers. The mathematicians should make it a goal in
    life to take an elementary course in logic.

    •        it can be used in operations

    " If you include zero among the natural numbers you have a monoid" [10]

    The fact that you can use it in operations does not make it a number. Is 5 not a number until you add and divide it?

    •        a belongs to a set

    " the only set that we seem certain enough that should exist by itself to merit its
       own axiom of existence is the empty set" [11]

    Once again, this confirms that zero is in a set all of its own.

    •        you can start counting from zero

    " All other natural numbers, as sets, can be built out of the empty set!" [12]

    This means that when the trashcan is empty, you can start putting new garbage in. Does this place the empty hole in
    the same category as the trash?

    Moore has failed to make his case. He has not justified that zero is a number.

    So what does he do after all that rant. He asks that you forget about the whole thing:

    " What's the verdict? There is no verdict. Zero is in a class of its own. Pick a definition
       and stick with it. Or let someone else define it whichever way they want and follow
       their lead... please don't do what I just did, and please step away from the argument.
       It is by no means interesting, I assure you. [13]

    Unfortunately, it's too late. As the Wikipedia folks said earlier, all mathematicians consider zero to be a number. If we don't
    challenge this idiocy, the mathematicians get away with murder. If we don't put people lke Moore in their rightful place, zero
    will continue to be treated as a number.

    In Science, we do things a bit differently. The burden of proof falls upon the proponent to define the word number and to justify
    that zero falls within this category. It is the mathematicians who have to justify that zero is a number before making it a law by
    decree and not the other way around. If zero is not a number there is no reason for the mathematicians to insist on this
    ludicrous proposal so late in the history of Man. The burden falls on the mathematicians to define the word number
    unambiguously. Then we will know for sure whether zero is a number or not. The symbol zero will either fit the description
    or not. Until the mathematicians can do this there is no reason to regard zero as a number.

    If the mathematicians want to include zero within the category they call 'numbers', they must define the word number in such
    a way that it:

    a. encompasses zero

    b. can be used consistently afterwards

    There is only one way to use the word number consistently in Mathematics and that's as a synonym of the verb to count. This
    summarily rules out the symbol zero!

    In fact, judging merely by all the errors in reasoning committed by Moore, we should make it a point to force the issue upon
    the mathematicians of the world. If we accept his veiled proposal (that zero is a number) we wouldn't be able to use the word
    number consistently (i.e., scientifically). More to the point, if the stupid morons of Mathematics don't know the basics in their
    field of expertise, what do they know?


    3.0   Multiples of 10

    The problem with regarding zero as a number is compounded because the mathematicians use the symbol zero to cap
    multiples of ten. This gives the mathematicians a strong incentive to regard zero as a number.

    However, we could have just as well used the Roman symbol X to designate multiples of ten and restricted the use of zero to
    that special situation where there is nothing. In this context, zero is merely a place-holder. The symbol is nothing but
    positional notation. Zero is just a shorthand for ten units and multiples of ten. If we had to put one stick for every item on the
    list, a list of a million items would require a million sticks. With zero, the notation simplifies enormously. You put a one followed
    by 6 zeros. But what do these zeros represent? Take the number 145. The 4 does not stand for 4 units, for example, for 4
    apples. The 4 represents 40 apples. The 4 continues to be the same number irrespective of where we place it. It is the position
    that determines the real significance of 4. The real meaning of 4 is contextual. This is the only meaning of zero in positional
    notation. We realize this when we have no other symbol but zero in our expression. For example, we can place five 4's as
    44444 and four 4's as 4444. The position of each four is crucial to understanding the value of each of these numbers. On the
    other hand, if we place five zeros 00000 or four zeros 0000, the result is the same. Whether five or four zeros, the value is
    always zero. There is no difference between 00000 and 0000.

    The binary system confirms that zero only has positional value. In the binary system, a one can be added and subtracted
    and carried over. For example the number 2 can be obtained by adding two number ones as follows:

                             Binary                              Decimal

    Position               32  16   8   4   2   1

                          0    0   0   0   0   1                =                1
              +           0    0   0   0   0   1                =                1
    ______________________                      _____
                                                                                  0    0   0   0   1   0                =                2


    In other words, a one plus a one equals a zero, but we carry a one over to the adjacent position, which is the twos column.
    Similarly, two plus two is expressed as follows:

                             Binary                              Decimal

    Position              32  16   8   4   2   1
                                    0    0   0   0   1   0                =                 2
              +                    0    0   0   0   1   0                =                 2
    ______________________                      _____
     0    0   0   1   0   0                =                 4

    Again, a one plus a one in the twos column is added, a zero is placed below the line, and a one carried over. Notice that the
    action figure is the number one. It changes places while place itself remains immobile. (Hopefully, the locations don't move
    on us!)  Numbers flow endlessly as if in motion, but location acts like a board on which numbers are drawn. Position is static,
    immutable. Unlike the one, which represents a number, a zero represents a location. The zero’s purpose is not to participate
    in arithmetical operations but to serve as a momentary place-holder (i.e., positional notation). The zero is not a number; it
    cannot be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided. (Some relativists fail to see the forest for the trees on this one. They
    confuse the zero for a number because of the identity property of zero). The zero is a character used to express the absence
    of numbers. Even in the decimal system we will always have 'something' regardless of how small we imagine our fraction to
    be. Zero, instead, represents the absence of numbers. A zero means that the slate has been wiped clean.

    "Zero itself is neither positive nor negative." [14]

    Pursuant to this definition, you cannot count to zero and you cannot measure zero. Measure means you extend something
    (e.g., a tape) or place something on a scale or distance or time.

    In Physics, zero distance is known as location. In Physics, there is no physical object with zero mass or zero weight. This is
    nonsense that belongs exclusively within Mathematical Physics. In Physics, no object may have zero width or zero height,
    and there is no such thing as zero temperature.  Perhaps in the idiotic religion of Mathematical Physics. Not in Science.


    4.0   Nothing is not nothing

    Another bright mind tells us

    " zero must be distinguished from nothingness (null)...You can see the distinction of
       zero and nothing by considering the following examples:  A person's grade in a
       course he never took is no grade or nothing.  But he may, however, have a grade
       of zero.  Or if a person has no account in a bank, his balance is nothing.  On the
       other hand, if he has a bank account, he may very well have a balance of zero." [10]

    You wonder sometimes about the mental state of some of these mathematicians. Certainly, they lack the grey matter to tackle
    such basic problems. If I didn't take the course, it is meaningless to say that I got no grade or a zero or whatever. And if I didn't
    open a bank account, it is meaningless to say that I have a balance of nothing. The word balance only has meaning if you
    have a bank account. I could just as well insist and say that the guy who has a bank account and the guy who doesn't both
    have amassed zero dollars. However, a more fundamental issue is that the argument this lost soul raises is qualitative in
    nature. This line of reasoning certainly will not conduce to the conclusion that zero is a number (quantity).
      
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Dog's Life Bill
working for food
The last employer was a relativist. He paid Bill with
zero apples. The previous employer was a string
theorist. He paid Bill with zero asparaguses.
Is zero a number?

    5.0   Physics

    In Physics, zero is a very easy thing to understand without the complications and farfetched arguments the mathematicians
    rely upon. A physical object can be at a single location. If I steal your shoe, you are excluded from using that particular shoe
    despite that you are its rightful owner. I now have exclusive use and you continue to enjoy exclusive rights – a published
    deed or receipt certifies so. But rights are concepts of interest solely to the legal system. As far as Physics is concerned, I
     have added and you have subtracted, and here Physics is to shoe what Math is to rights. Like lawyers, mathematicians
    will attempt to persuade the jury that subtraction could result in zero, for example, 1 – 1 = 0. This may be okay in the abstract
    world of Math, but never in Physics. In Physics, the shoe doesn’t vanish; it merely changes location. The atoms that once
    covered your feet now protect mine.


    6.0   Null vector

    The morons of Mathematics have used the zero to designate dynamic concepts. Take the null vector for example. A vector is
    supposed to represent the motion of something. If the thing doesn't move or moves and comes back to its starting point, the
    mathematicians depict this with a null vector. However, if something doesn't move, it has location. And if it moved, in Physics
    at least, it can never come back to its starting point. The null vector is a ridiculous concoction of Mathematics that either
    represents location (a static concept) or violates the laws of the physical world, specifically the one which states that no atom
    in the Universe can ever occupy the same location twice.


    7.0   In Science, space is the counterpart of zero

    In fact space is more restrictive than the magical zero of abstract Math. In Math we can do almost anything, such as subtract
    one from one to produce zero. In the real world cancellation of matter and ‘anti-matter’ does not result in space but allegedly
    in energy. Space is neither energy nor a process. Processes find a parallel in mathematical operations, not in the symbol zero.
    Matter and motion are entirely unrelated to space. Like position, space is motionless. Space is to position and zero what
    matter is to number and one. A one can be divided into seemingly infinite fractions and never become a zero. Similarly,
    matter can be divided into countless pieces, but never become space. Fractions of matter are scattered throughout space
    and, if added up, they could be conceived to constitute a single block of matter. The Law of Conservation of Energy requires
    that the physical account be balanced in the end.
Well, technically, I'm not
spanking Stevie, because I am
slapping him with zero fingers.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008