Re: 0 * X = null?
From: Richard Cavell (richardcavell_at_mail.com)
Date: 01/30/05
- Next message: Arthur Fischer: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: 0 * X = null?"
- In reply to: snafu: "0 * X = null?"
- Next in thread: Dwayne: "Re: 0 * X = null?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:43:25 +1100
On 31/1/05 1:21 AM, snafu wrote:
> Him: "If you had 2 Xs, you'd have 2 * X. If you had 1 X, you'd have 1
> * X. If you had 0 Xs, you would have 0 * X (nothing), not 0. You
> would not have a 0, because 0 is a thing (it's a number). Only 'null'
> is nothing."
To state that 'zero is a thing, being a numeral' is quite reasonable,
but no more reasonable than to state that one or two is a thing, being
numerals. Zero can enumerate the number of Xs just as well as 2 can
enumerate the number of Xs.
It depends on your real world problem as to what the numbers actually
mean. Depending on the thing you're modelling, you may or may not
regard negative numbers, fractions, complex numbers, etc, as possible.
> He went on to say that's why X / 0 = undefined.
If the word 'divide' means that after you're completed, there ought to
be [divisor] number of pieces, it has no meaning to divide something,
anything, so that you end up with zero of it.
- Next message: Arthur Fischer: "Re: My claim on Omega's defn"
- Previous message: A N Niel: "Re: 0 * X = null?"
- In reply to: snafu: "0 * X = null?"
- Next in thread: Dwayne: "Re: 0 * X = null?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
