Why Are Zero Things Plural? 5

[Lunatic]

I've searched the forum and checked Wikipedia (

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero)

but I can't find anything about this topic. I know Wikipedia isn't a definitive voice, but it is a good starting point to find out what you need to look for.

Why are zero things plural?

You have zero cars/things

You have one car/thing

You have two cars/things

So why are zero things plural?


***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> you bring up/make another excellent efficiency opportinity:
An excellent what?

==> Yes, it will hurt the ears of those of us that love proper use of the English language, but if we optimise the language to just say "no" to any subjective pronouns, then any subjective/objective-sense abuse "disappear", by definition.
I think this singular topic is far too subjective to render an objective opinion, and you're not likely to achieve a plurality among the voters.


--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SantaMufasa]

An excellent what?

opportinity...aren't you familiar with that? It's like an "opportunity", but it is not quite as strong...it is flimsier (e.g., made out of "tin" instead of something sturdier). And in this case, created by chubby fingers.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[CajunCenturion]

So what you're saying is that it's an idea that doesn't quite have the metal to stand up?

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SantaMufasa]

Eggzaktlee !

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Lunatic]

Santa

Zero is really a placeholder for null.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/zero

1 a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)

0 (zero) is both a number and a numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. As a number, zero means nothing — an absence of other values.

Zero isn't a true number, not in the sense of 1 to (infinity - 1). Over time it has been 'labeled' a number, but it really is a placeholder for the absence of a true number.

And you know how lazy we are... the placeholder became adopted in as a number. But its really like that adopted Romulan in the family. Your family isn't complete unless he's there, but at the same time, he's not really family...

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[Skie]

And yet null <> 0 once we involve computers.

 

[Olaf Doschke]

I can't say I remember that distinction of leaving off the 's' when speaking of a singular noun.

Well, it's not really about the s of "Eins" (one) being removed to form the word "ein", because "ein" should be translated to "a". So in fact we never say he has one car,
we say he has a car. But then again you can say "ein oder zwei" (one or two), so "ein" is used in both ways.

Then in english you have only "a", "an" is just for a better flow in spoken language. In germany like in many other countries there's a difference due to the gender of the noun. "ein" is for male or neutrum, "eine" for female.

Regarding Plural and Singular endings german again like many other languages is more complicated than just adding s to the singular for the plural.

Bye, Olaf.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Zero isn't a true number, not in the sense of 1 to (infinity - 1).
I disagree whole-heartedly with that. Zero is most definitely a true number, especially if you consider the sense of -[&infin;] to [&infin;].

While I agree that zero is the "absence of all magnitude or quantity", that doesn't mean it's not a number.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[KornGeek]

Zero is a very significant number, especially when referring to the difference between two values.

As far as being able to hold zero of an object, at the moment, I am holding zero Salma Hayeks. If only I knew how to increase that number...

 

[SantaMufasa]

First, let's ensure that our terminology is correct:

1) "Number" and "numeral" are, by no means, synonymous: a "numeral" is a symbol that represents a "number".

A way to understand the difference between numbers and numerals is to consider dice. There are dots on each of the six sides of a die. There are different numbers of dots on each of the six sides. On typical dice, there are no numerals, only a number (i.e., "quantity") of dots.

The inventor(s) of dice could have put any number of dots on each face of each die: so, instead of the dot quantities: ".", "..", "...", "....", ".....", and "......", the dot quantities could just as easily have been: " " (<- blank), ".", "..", "...", "....", and ".....". In the latter example, the number of dots on the highest-quantity face enumerate to "five", which we represent with the numeral "5"; Romans would have represented the same number with the numeral "V". The numbers are identical...the numerals are nothing alike.

The number of dots on the lowest-quantity die face enumerate to "zero", which we represent with the numeral "0";

2) "Null" and "Zero" are not equal. "Zero" is a specific numeric value; "NULL" is an unknown value. A zero value is not equal to an UNKNOWN value. Here is programmatical evidence:

SQL> select case when 0 = null then '0 = null'
  2              when 0 is null then '0 is null'
  3              when 0 = 0 then '0 not = null; only 0 = 0'
  4         end "Definitive_Answer"
  5  from dual
  6  /

Definitive_Answer
------------------------
0 not = null; only 0 = 0

Zero is really a placeholder for null

I believe the above example addresses this assertion.

the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity

M-W.com is imprecise in the above notion. The above example debunks the notion that 0 is somehow equal to NULL.

...Zero isn't a true number, not in the sense of 1 to (infinity - 1). Over time it has been 'labeled' a number, but it really is a placeholder for the absence of a true number.

The accepted method of graphically representing the set of all numbers is a number line (e.g. "x axis" on a graph) that extends infinitely to the right for all positive numbers and infinitely to the left for all negative numbers. The integral number value that is the numeric threshold between negative and positive numbers is the number zero. I believe that all reputable mathmaticians would unanimously contend that zero is as valid a number value as 1, -1, or any other numeric value.



Lunatic, IMHO, the dictionary entries in your post, above, from m-w.com and wikipedia.org, do not support your assertion that "Zero isn't a true number". In fact, your Wikipedia excerpt declares that zero is a number:

(zero) is both a number and a numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. As a number, zero means nothing — an absence of other values.

Wiki's assertion, unfortunately, is imprecise. When Wiki says "zero means nothing", that is extremely ambiguous because zero does mean something. Additionally, Wiki says, "zero (is)...an absence of other values"; that, too, is ambiguous: "1" is an absence of other values; "285" is an absence of other values, "-1,444" is an absence of other values. Wiki's is a poorly worded, imprecise treatment of the number "zero".


I also believe that you are presenting only the part of independent definitions that seem to agree with your assertions. It's true that Merriam-Webster says of "zero" what you posted, but you omitted the adjacent definition that unequivocably declares that zero is a number:

Main Entry: ze·ro
Pronunciation: 'zE-(")rO, 'zir-(")O
Function: noun...
1 a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or <null> denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity b: the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers

So, once the evidence is in, then:


1) zero is a valid number, and
2) zero is not null.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Lunatic]

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mzero.html

Conclusion: yes, zero is a number, unless you are defining "number" in the restricted mathematical sense of Counting Numbers.

Zero is a numerical concept that exits in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Though it was a very late commer, not really understood until the 7th century CE in India and not until the 12th century in Western Europe. Zero didn't become common in Western Europe until 16th century (Wikipedia article linked above).

***

Okay, zero is a real number, but it still isn't a counting number. And it seems to me that the problem is with counting numbers.

It seems, from the multitude of sources on google searches for "history of zero" and "use of zero" that null was understood as far back 1,500 BCE by the Babylonians but they used a the symbol as a placeholder for none/null, not for a mathematical concept of zero.

It took 3,000 years for the concept of none to be understood as a mathematical concept of zero in the general public (16th century BCE). At which point it would appear the rules for none/null were simply applied to the mathematical concept of zero.

Since you would say I have no oxen instead of I have no ox, it because the norm to say I have zero oxen.

At least thats what my meager mind has tried to put together.

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[CajunCenturion]

==&gt; unless you are defining &quot;number&quot; in the restricted mathematical sense of Counting Numbers.
That's a rather misleading statement because what 'restricted mathematical sense of Counting Numbers' means, in mathematical terms, 'is a member of the set of counting numbers'.

Zero is not a member of Set of Natural (sometimes known as Counting) Numbers.

However,
Zero is a member of the Set of Whole Numbers.
Zero is a member of the Set of Rational Numbers.
Zero is a member of the Set of Real Numbers.





--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SantaMufasa]

Amen, CC.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Lunatic]

You're missing the first part of that quotation:

Conclusion: yes, zero is a number, unless...

So there are 4 types of number identified:

Whole Numbers
Rational Numbers
Real Numbers
Natural (Counting) Numbers

Zero is a whole number, a rational number, and a real number.

Zero is not a natural number.

I don't see how this is overly restrictive?

Especially since this quetion is all about Counting Numbers?

I've learned quite a bit about Zero in the last few days (such as I was under-assuming when zero had been shown to be an actual number), but in the realm of this question, zero is not a number because we're dealing with counting. Its not restricting zero in algebra, calculus, or geometry, simply in counting from 1 item to 10 items.

So let me modify the quotation that started this all:

"I know that zero isn't a number when using counting numbers (its actually the absence/placeholder of a number)."


***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[CajunCenturion]

This is probably better suited for STC, but since we're here.

I don't believe that I'm missing any part of that quotation. Zero is ALWAYS a number. There is no unless, not in any sense.

Conclusion: yes, zero is a number, unless you are defining "number" in the restricted mathematical sense of Counting Numbers.

That statement, from a mathematics perspective, is just plain wrong. Mathematically speaking, the 'counting numbers' is the set of all positive integers, not a suitable definition of 'number'.

The set of counting numbers, or natural numbers if you prefer, is the set of all positive integers, i.e. N = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...}. Zero is not a member of that set - it's not a positive integer - but then, neither are any of the following numbers: 1/2, 3/4, 5.2, -3, pi, SQR(2), i, and an infinite number of other numbers. To say that zero is not a number because it's not a counting number is to say that none of those other values are numbers either because they're not counting numbers.

==> "I know that zero isn't a number when using counting numbers (its actually the absence/placeholder of a number)."
I don't think one would say that three isn't a number when using the even numbers. For the same reason, I don't think one should not say that zero isn't a number when using the counting numbers.

Three is always a number. It's never an even number.
Zero is always a number. It's never a counting number.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Lunatic]

Three is always a number. It's never an even number.
Zero is always a number. It's never a counting number.

What ever we think about zero, this still brings us back to the what I'm trying to find out... If zero isn't a number when counting, why is it plural.

If in the counting number system, zero doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to use plural rules. So then, why do we?

The answer that you provided originally, that 1 is singular, everything else is plural, is simple enough, but how did it come to be that was the rule used? The logic behind it is not readily apparent.

Looking at the history of zero as a placeholder in the counting system, it seems that it just absorbed the rules that were used for no 'things', which was plural. That seems like the most logical reason why zero ended up as plural rather singular.

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[SantaMufasa]

Looking at the history of zero as a placeholder in the counting system, it seems that it just absorbed the rules that were used for no 'things', which was plural

That is a reasonable assessment in my opinion.

If in the counting number system, zero doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to use plural rules.

Zero is not plural; neither is it singular. So, using singular or plural rules to conjugate for zero, has weaknesses.

The Foundings Fathers and Mothers of Grammar had to make a choice. Frankly either choice would have had as much logical support (or lack thereof) as the other.

I believe this thread possesses an abundance of fine treatment of this issue, to the extent that all of us understand the issues, the arguments, and the logic. IMHO, more "treatment" is tantamount to medicating a deceased equine.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[Lunatic]

But there's still room for using said equine to repetitiously disipate kinetic energy?

***************************************
Have a problem with my spelling or grammar? Please refer all complaints to my English teacher:
Ralphy "Me fail English? That's unpossible." Wiggum

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think we need to get on the same page with some terminology.

==&gt; If in the counting number system, zero doesn't exist, it doesn't make sense to use plural rules. So then, why do we?
First off, we don't use a counting number system; we use a positional number system. Secondly, zero does exist within our positional system.

==&gt; The answer that you provided originally, that 1 is singular, everything else is plural, is simple enough, but how did it come to be that was the rule used? The logic behind it is not readily apparent.
Our language has, for the most part, its roots in Latin and the word plural derives from Latin pluralis, meaning more than one. Now the Romans used perhaps the most well-known counting system - the Roman Numerals. There is no zero in the Roman numerals and so at that time, one was the smallest known quantity. Latin dealt with singular and plural as 'one' and 'more than one' respectively and which was entirely consistent with their counting system.

Whereas our language came largely from the Romans, our number system did not. The position number system probably has its roots in India, which is positional, contains fractions, and zero, and may predate the Romans by as much as 2000 years.

The effect was the adoption of a number system which contains concepts not accounted for in language. It may be as simple as plural going through a subtle transformation in meaning from &quot;more than one&quot; to &quot;not just one&quot;. I don't know for sure.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[pinkgecko]

I think we're having some difficulty with "0" still, since we're all convinced that there should be null/indefinite/undefined more posts on this thread instead of zero/none/quit

[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]