Is zero an imaginary number?

[Tyranic]

Is absence immaginary?

 

[top score]

No its a real number, its the amount of times you will all get laid during highschool.

 

[333]

technically as a number 0 exist because numbers like 10 20 30 100 1000 wouldn't exist without 0 lol

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

It does have a specified value, nothing. It's that easy. And zero is, in fact, an integer- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integer. Get your facts straight.

in⋅te⋅ger
–noun
1. Mathematics. one of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.

 

[Thikr]

We were going over interesting mathematics theories, and zero came up.
Our verdict was that it has no value, and is simply a frame of reference, but it is NOT an integer, so it isn't exactly a number. Since it doesn't add value, and can't be negative, it doesn't have a specified value.

Opinions?

Zero is neither negative OR positive and it IS an integer.

Actually, all numbers are imaginary - as you say, frames of reference.

You're right, though, in that zero itself isn't a number - it's the lack of one.

Numbers represent value, Zero represents the value between the positive and negative numbers, so Zero is a number.

Strictly speaking imaginary numbers are numbers which contain the square root of one in the form x + y*sqrt(-1), and, when squared, give a negative number.

Zero is still zero in any base. 0 base 4 is equal to 0 base 10, or any other base. As you point out it is the origin of the number line or dimension.

Zero is used as a value when the number contains more than one digit. For example '100' in base 8 is 64.

It would be difficult to argue zero has no value, being as zero is a value. But this is more simply demonstrated by the fact that any origin can be described in terms of any other origin. Zero is just the point you've opted to work around, it doesn't lose its absolute value just because you ignore that value in your calculations. It has no relative value in your calculations, because it is the very frame from which relative value is judged.

Maybe someone studying number theory can add something more to this discussion?

Correct but maybe this should be dumbed down for others here.

In simplest terms, a "+" (positive integer) times a "-" (negative integer) is a "-" and a "-" times a "-" is a "+". When you square a number, you get the the number times itself, and when you square root a number you get the two identical numbers multiplied to get that number.

Example: 3 squared is equal to 3 times 3 (9) and the square root of 9 is 3... get it? Now answer me this question, what is the square root of -4?

If you came up with any number at all, you weren't reading earlier in the post... The root of -4 is written as "-ii" though it does not exist. Also said, Zero is the origin of all planes, number-lines etc. Its unique properties ([0 x N = 0] where N is any real number, is to name one of many) make it an ever more important value.

My argument: I don't have one but I guess the message here is, just because it is important doesn't make it unreal

it's a concept, that's certainly not imaginary...

It is a concept as are ALL numbers AND/OR letters AND/OR words.

Where in reality does it exist?

Describe the condition of a gas containing NO kinetic energy, in a number form please. Or describe what is in the space between a proton and an electron, or what is outside of our universe.

^ LMFAO!~ :laugh:

If every number is imaginary, what about our language, other languages, all the letters of the alphabet? Are they all imaginary?

No...

It's imaginary, just like anything spoken or written. Don't be so naive.

They are not necessarily imaginary per se (for my last comment...) Letters and numbers are concepts we use to communicate with each other.

Is absence immaginary?

No, conceptual however...

It does have a specified value, nothing. It's that easy. And zero is, in fact, an integer- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/integer. Get your facts straight.

in⋅te⋅ger
–noun
1. Mathematics. one of the positive or negative numbers 1, 2, 3, etc., or zero.

Thank you for that...

Zero is a number so it is technically speaking "unreal" and "Conceptual" however within the number system if that were to be considered real and dare I say, physical, Zero is little more than "important" because it is just that, a normal number representing the absence of something. "-ii" would be considered "unreal" and "infinite" would be considered conceptual inside of the number system.

 

[MatthewGor123]

The root of -4 is written as "-ii" though it does not exist.

Meh, the root if (-4) is actually 2i, not -(2i) but that doesn't really matter. You can still get -i when you do i^3, because it follows the patterns of real numbers in this sense.

Anyways, zero is most definitely NOT an imaginary number, anyways by the mathematical definition of "imaginary." An imaginary number in maths is only defined as a number whose value squared is equal to a negative number. Obviously, 0^2 is 0, so it is not imaginary in that sense of the word.

I can't explain any better than Sythe why 0 is, in fact an integer other than than it's a convention, and it works well with bases of numbers. Also, 0 is applicable in place value, but that's more 10 than 0, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Describe the condition of a gas containing NO kinetic energy, in a number form please. Or describe what is in the space between a proton and an electron, or what is outside of our universe.

Very probably nothing. Note that "nothing" is not a "thing" between them, it is the absence of a thing.

 

[MatthewGor123]

So how can you describe empty space, other than with the concept of zero? You can't; therefore, it's not imaginary, it's very, very real both in nature and in mathematics.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So how can you describe empty space, other than with the concept of zero? You can't; therefore, it's not imaginary, it's very, very real both in nature and in mathematics.

First, zero represents nothingness, not actual space between physical objects.

Second, if that space is really empty, you can describe the space between the two objects as having nothing in it.

 

[MatthewGor123]

But there *is* actually something in it, it's just something with nothing else to describe it other than "zero" - there are "zero" known particles between a proton and an electron, but there IS something there!

Prior to the introduction of the concept of an atom, people thought there was "nothing" less than an element, or anyways that there was NO method of describing it, and those who believed in the atom were thought of as having no rationality. Then, when the atom was discovered, people thought that there's NO WAY it can be further broken down, and here we have protons, neutrons, and electrons. And now, there are theories that even that can be further broken down. Hmm...

And what about the Hadron SuperCollider? Surely that's defying EVERYTHING people thought of as rational before.
Rationality is constantly being redefined.

Is the absence of everything really the same as the presence of nothing [but not REALLY nothing, but something we just don't know]? Hmm.

 

[Shredderbeam]

But there *is* actually something in it, it's just something with nothing else to describe it other than "zero" - there are "zero" known particles between a proton and an electron, but there IS something there!

If there is something there, zero is not an appropriate term. Zero denotes nothingness. Not something, but absolutely nothing - the lack of any thing.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Okay, so let's get back to the basis of this argument. Are you just trying to find holes in my argument that zero is not imaginary, both mathematically and in nature, or do you actually feel that zero is purely imaginary? If so, try to convince me

 

[Shredderbeam]

Zero, and all numbers, are an abstraction that can be applied to reality. If you look at two rocks, you see a rock and a rock, not the abstract of two - you only see the concept of two as applied to those rocks.

For example, one might ask "Does 'round' exist?". The answer would be no, roundness itself does not exist, but things in reality can have the quality of being round.

 

[MatthewGor123]

Eww @ epicfail4me @ abstractness.

So you're saying that 0 is not the only imaginary number in nature; any number greater than 1 is also imaginary?

 

[Shredderbeam]

All numbers are imaginary in that they do not directly exist in reality. They are concepts that are applied.

 

[25packbeer]

Well where is zero in reality? Where can it be seen, or touched?

actualy on a keyboard you can =)

 

[Shallow]

actualy on a keyboard you can =)

That is a graphical representation of the concept of zero. It is ink drawn in a circular fashion. It is not in itself "zero".

Like Shredderbeam has said, all numbers [and letters] are a graphical representation of its concept.

 

[MatthewGor123]

I think a very valid argument for its validity is how it works in other bases. As stated earlier, 10 (base10) in base 2 is 1010, in base 3 is 101, but in base 4, it becomes 22, and in hexadecimal, it becomes 14. And base-6 is extremely important not only in the field of mathematics, but also in nature - therefore, the 0 in 10 is not only a concept to suggest like "add 1, 10 times" but also changes the entire value of the number and the way it functions outside of base 10.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Eww @ epicfail4me @ abstractness.

So you're saying that 0 is not the only imaginary number in nature; any number greater than 1 is also imaginary?

He's saying that everything in moderation, including moderation, is in all actuality unreal and imaginary... To a degree. It's really not that hard to understand.

Let go of your physical understandings and attach your mind to a broader opening. See the world as nothing, but everything.

Shredder's point of view is the same of that as a person who has had a stroke. Everything is just there in the thought.

As for 0 being an imaginary number...

How would you apply value to larger numbers? (Imaginary in the term of understood, and applied Reality, Shredderbeam.)

For instance, 1 million is represented by a 1, and 6 zero's. (1,000,000). If zero is to represent nothingness then it would be simply one, or 2 for 2 million. Zero represents, in my immediate un-researched opinion, the lack of a value in a particular place. That does not make it positive or negative, it is just the lack thereof.

Which means for -9 to +9, 0 would be the lack of either number point. So in the tens place, the value would be nothing, but it must be represented for higher numbers to exist without greater value than intended.

 

[MatthewGor123]

But in the number 10, the 0 does not actually represent a 0 - you could just as easily go into other bases and do your calculations there, without the need of any immediate "zero" for placevalue, per say.

Also, instead or representing it as 100, you can break it down into factors, like "2*2*5*5" where you are using other "imaginary, conceptual" properties of numbers to gain something very real.

Meh.