Is 0 a finite number?

Originally posted by sharpnova
Mathematically it's finite.

Physical sciences-wise, not really. Though zero is certainly more finite than the singular extremums of GR.

What is GR?

Savvvvvvvvvvvvvvved Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ZerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrO!

Originally posted by TitusvE
What is GR?

General Relativity.

Originally posted by sharpnova
Mathematically it's finite.

Physical sciences-wise, not really. Though zero is certainly more finite than the singular extremums of GR.

huh?
Zero can easily be defined as a singular extremum in physical sciences ... depending on how we decide to link the number to the "thing"
eg the ultimate physical zero: a complete absence of anything, an ideal vacuum; according to quantum physics, suffers quantum fluctuations which create particles and is never quite achievable

Is this about "numbers" or physical "things"?

I think choice of different measuring frames, which connect numbers to things, might help to lend light to this discussion:

If 0 is defined as how many days we need to wait until to tomorrow, then 0 is unobtainable.
However:
If 0 is defined as the number of years since (a devout christian believes) JC died, then 0 was a year which happened.

Similarly:

0 Celsius is something I have in my freezer
however:
0 Kelvin is something I cannot find

Zero is a finite number.
In some models it can represent "infinite" or unobtainable "things" ... but so can any number we choose.

Originally posted by flexmore
However:
If 0 is defined as the number of years since (a devout christian believes) JC died, then 0 was a year which happened.

However - Year Zero didn't exist. By definition.

Next day of was 31st of December the year 1 B.C. was 1st of January the year 1 A.D.

Further: The year zero was not (ever) defined of years after Jesus death. Some people say years after Jesus was born, but not even that is true.

is -0.999999999999' 0 / are numbers an abstract reality / are numbers just places on a number line

does 0.999999999' = 0 / are numbers an abstract reality / are numbers just places on the number line / then 0 is infinite and finite.

Originally posted by kaminsky
is -0.999999999999' 0 / are numbers an abstract reality / are numbers just places on a number line

Numbers are ordered on a number line, where there is a location for "0" which is just another number.

0 behaves like other numbers: in addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

0 works logically like any other number: e.g. how many apples would I have if you gave me zero apples? What if that happened zero times? Seems not different (logically) to if you gave me one/two/six apples once / twice / six times.

0 as the freezing point of water at sea level, or absolute zero in respect of temperature, are concepts in physics and not number concepts despite the obvious fact that they are numerically defined. They refer to a state of nature, not a property of numbers.

Years in the Xtian calender are not only arbitrary but also I am fairly sure they appeared historically earlier than the introduction of Zero as a number into Western mathematics.

sry pissed and playing poker, this should read -0.99999' + 1 =0.the points are questions really, not unqualified certainty. my main point is , is there a difference between a whole number and one where an infinitely small addidtion or subtraction is applied, can it be defined.

Originally posted by kaminsky
sry pissed and playing poker, this should read -0.99999' + 1 =0.the points are questions really, not unqualified certainty. my main point is , is there a difference between a whole number and one where an infinitely small addidtion or subtraction is applied, can it be defined.

In your example the difference is 0.00001

The significance of that depends on what you are doing with it: greater in astronomy than in poker I suspect.

Originally posted by kaminsky
sry pissed and playing poker, this should read -0.99999' + 1 =0.the points are questions really, not unqualified certainty. my main point is , is there a difference between a whole number and one where an infinitely small addidtion or subtraction is applied, can it be defined.

Might be barking up he wrong tree tree here but 0.99999... (where the dots imply infinitely recurring) is precisely equal to 1.
It's just the decimal representation of 1 = 9*(1/9) = 9*(0.11111...) = 0.99999...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
However - Year Zero didn't exist. By definition.

Next day of was 31st of December the year 1 B.C. was 1st of January the year 1 A.D.

Further: The year zero was not (ever) defined of years after Jesus death. Some people say years after Jesus was born, but not even that is true.

LOL 0 hadn't been invented yet

Originally posted by kaminsky
sry pissed and playing poker, this should read -0.99999' + 1 =0.the points are questions really, not unqualified certainty. my main point is , is there a difference between a whole number and one where an infinitely small addidtion or subtraction is applied, can it be defined.

In the normal, everyday number line, no. In surreal numbers, yes. But nobody except maths freaks use surreal numbers, and they use them mostly to toy around with, or to do games theory (and if one wants to be snide, one could say that that's the same thing - but it isn't, entirely). Hell, nobody except people who paid attention in maths class in sec.ed. ever uses the real number line, either - most people stick to the whole numbers with an occasional rational and, very rarely, an algebraic non-rational thrown in. So yes, for the vast majority of people, and for everybody in the majority of contexts, one minus infinitesimal equals one, exactly.

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
In the normal, everyday number line, no. In surreal numbers, yes. But nobody except maths freaks use surreal numbers, and they use them mostly to toy around with, or to do games theory (and if one wants to be snide, one could say that that's the same thing - but it isn't, entirely). Hell, nobody except people who paid attention in maths class in sec.ed. ...[text shortened]... everybody in the majority of contexts, one minus infinitesimal equals one, exactly.

Richard

Whoa! The whole numbers are boring! I mean, they're tiny, and they have a boring structure as a group compared to, say, the rationals. You can't do analysis on the whole numbers either, not really...

Originally posted by kaminsky
sry pissed and playing poker, this should read -0.99999' + 1 =0.the points are questions really, not unqualified certainty. my main point is , is there a difference between a whole number and one where an infinitely small addidtion or subtraction is applied, can it be defined.

There are two ways to write the value of 1.
(a) - 1
(b) - 0.99999... (infinitely number of nines)

Subtract one with the other and you'll get exactly (not infinitely near to) zero.

In fact, there are two ways to write every rational number, but only one way to write an irrational number.

[edit] ...and suddenly I discovered that this was exactly what Agerg wrote half a week ago.