NationStates Jolt Archive

You may, however, attempt to refute this in the form of a valid mathematical proof. Go ahead, try.

Scaena, I will not be so bold as to attempt to refute your logic, but it occurs to me that every even number can be divided into two equal groups of whole numbers, i.e. 2 can be divided into 1 + 1, 4 into 2 + 2, etc. Conversely, no odd number can be divided into two equal groups of whole numbers.

Zero can neither be divided into equal groups, nor unequal groups, which seems to me evidence that zero is neither odd nor even, just as it is neither postive nor negative.

Abolish the concept of "whole numbers". Use the term "integers" instead. Even and odd apply to integers, which is the set described above.

Then you will see that the number 0 can indeed be written as the sum of two equal integers. They just both happen to be 0. So, 0 + 0 = 0.

it occurs to me that every even number can be divided into two equal groups of whole numbers

It may occur to you that that is the case, but the definition of an even number is the one Scanea gave, that is, a number that can be written as 2k for some integer k.

Thus, just because you have made an observation about some numbers which satisfy this property, does not mean that numbers which don't satisfy your observation aren't even. For example, you might say that you've noticed that some even numbers are divisible by four, and hence you conclude that 2, 6, etc are not even. Now that's obviously wrong, but it's actually a similar argument to saying that you've noticed that some even numbers divide by two to give natural numbers (that is, non-zero positive integers) and that hence you conclude that zero is not even, which is pretty much the same as what you said.

Hope that didn't sound harsh. It's actually quite an easy mistake to make.

i think its final (maybe) that 0 is a number and an even one at that

It may occur to you that that is the case, but the definition of an even number is the one Scanea gave, that is, a number that can be written as 2k for some integer k.

Thus, just because you have made an observation about some numbers which satisfy this property, does not mean that numbers which don't satisfy your observation aren't even. For example, you might say that you've noticed that some even numbers are divisible by four, and hence you conclude that 2, 6, etc are not even. Now that's obviously wrong, but it's actually a similar argument to saying that you've noticed that some even numbers divide by two to give natural numbers (that is, non-zero positive integers) and that hence you conclude that zero is not even, which is pretty much the same as what you said.

Hope that didn't sound harsh. It's actually quite an easy mistake to make.

However, I didn't say SOME even numbers can be divided into two even groups of whole numbers, but rather ALL even numbers can be divided into two groups of equal whole numbers. Just as NO odd number can be divided into two groups of equal whole numbers.

That is why your counter example, using the word SOME, is an incorrect analogy.

Objects, including numbers, are arranged into classes or groups according to shared characteristics. A characteristic that applies to ALL objects within a group can be said to define that group. All logical groupings are ultimately subjective in that the characteristics, and hence the groupings, are defined by humans.

Consider the example of race, which is rather arbitrarily defined by the characteristic of skin color. It could just as easily be defined by the characteristic of eye color. The same applies with Scanea's defining characteristic of even numbers as being those that can be written as 2k for some integer k. It becomes the defining characteristic of even numbers if it is universally agreed upon as such.

This is basic logic and deductive reasoning.

Err... it -is- universally agreed upon, by mathematicians. The only people who have questioned it here have no background in mathematical theory.

A news story from the German television news program (ZDF) "Heute" on Oct. 1, 1977:

Smog alarm in Paris: Only cars with an odd terminating number on the license plate are admitted for driving. Cars with an even digit terminating were not allowed to be driven. There were problems: Is the terminating number 0 an even number? Drivers with such numbers were not fined, because the police did not know the answer.

And I thought the UK edukascion system was bad... Even despite all the other arguments (which I say proves that zero is a valid value and an even one at that), if the object of the excercise is to half the number of cars on the road then it is obvious that five out of ten digits (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) are allowed and five out of ten digits (0, 2, 4, 6, 8) are not. Though that argument doesn't constitute mathematical proof of anything much and it could have been (0..4)/(5..9) or perhaps even (2, 3, 5, 7, 8)/(0, 1, 4, 6, 9)...

(And if you can tell me the (actual) reasoning I used behind the last split, you win an entitlement to look really smug... :)

Part 1:

Proposition: The number 0 is even.

For, as proof by contradiction, suppose that the number 0 is odd.

Then, 2k+1 = 0 for some integer k.
// Comment: this is by accepted mathematical definition, that you will find in any mathematical textbook. The term "integer" is used, and describes the set of numbers {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. Therefore, by the accepted mathematical definitions of "even" (which is any number that can be represented by 2k, for some integer k) and "odd", any integer can be even or odd -- and, in fact, must be even or odd. This applies to the entire integer set and not just the natural set, not just the nonnegative integers -- the whole damn thing.
//

Then, 2k = -1.

Then, k = -1/2.

However, this is a contradiction, since k was supposed to be an integer.

Therefore, since the number 0 cannot be odd, the number 0 is even, q.e.d..



I will try and make this even more explicit.
Part 2:

Proposition: The number 0 is even.

For, as proof by contradiction, suppose that the number 0 is not even.

Then, 2k /= 0, for some integer k.
//Comment: I'm using the symbol "/=" to represent an equal sign with a slash through it, which means "not equal."
//

Then, k /= 0.

However, this is a contradiction, since 0 is an element of the integer set.

Therefore, etc, q.e.d..


If you try and refute this without bringing a valid mathematical citation to the table, you're a big fat idiot. You are not allowed to invent terms such as "neutral number." You are not allowed to use nonlogical reasoning that involves you doing well in high school mathematics.

You may, however, attempt to refute this in the form of a valid mathematical proof. Go ahead, try.

Your first proof is fine, but your second proof is uneeded and wrong because you don't say why k has to be 0 at all.

Simpler proof:
An even number is an integer that can be represented as 2*k.
0 can be represented as 2*0.
Thus, 0 is even.
-[]

3 + 5 = chair.

Oh my god! They're writing it down!

Its true, a second grade teacher gets paid just as much as a high school physics teacher (or math teacher for taht matter).

I'm suprised this thread has gone on so long. These questions are usually trivial and a matter of definition. But for amusements sake, what is 0/0? (SHH calc kids don't tell'em, not that they would listen anyway).

0 is a non-existant number. It is used to define something which does not exist or is against all logic.

Because it is non-existant, It is neither odd nor even.

i know 0 is neither negitive or positive but what about odd/even i think its even

odd nimbers start at 1 and go every other number 1,3,5,7;1,-1,-3,-5,-7
even starts at 2 and go every other number 2,4,6,8;2,0,-2,-4,-6,-8
Neither. It's like asking if zero is positive or negative.

Neither. It's like asking if zero is positive or negative.
erm.... no it isn't

0 is even. Period.

It may occur to you that that is the case, but the definition of an even number is the one Scanea gave, that is, a number that can be written as 2k for some integer k.

Thus, just because you have made an observation about some numbers which satisfy this property, does not mean that numbers which don't satisfy your observation aren't even. For example, you might say that you've noticed that some even numbers are divisible by four, and hence you conclude that 2, 6, etc are not even. Now that's obviously wrong, but it's actually a similar argument to saying that you've noticed that some even numbers divide by two to give natural numbers (that is, non-zero positive integers) and that hence you conclude that zero is not even, which is pretty much the same as what you said.

Hope that didn't sound harsh. It's actually quite an easy mistake to make.
However, I didn't say SOME even numbers can be divided into two even groups of whole numbers, but rather ALL even numbers can be divided into two groups of equal whole numbers. Just as NO odd number can be divided into two groups of equal whole numbers.

That is why your counter example, using the word SOME, is an incorrect analogy.

Objects, including numbers, are arranged into classes or groups according to shared characteristics. A characteristic that applies to ALL objects within a group can be said to define that group. All logical groupings are ultimately subjective in that the characteristics, and hence the groupings, are defined by humans.

Consider the example of race, which is rather arbitrarily defined by the characteristic of skin color. It could just as easily be defined by the characteristic of eye color. The same applies with Scanea's defining characteristic of even numbers as being those that can be written as 2k for some integer k. It becomes the defining characteristic of even numbers if it is universally agreed upon as such.

This is basic logic and deductive reasoning.
Err... it -is- universally agreed upon, by mathematicians. The only people who have questioned it here have no background in mathematical theory.
Perhaps, in the world of mathematics, and assuming you are discussing integers and not natural numbers, then zero is even. However, in the real world, if you're at the roulette table and you bet "evens" and the ball lands on 0 or 00, you lose.

Perhaps, in the world of mathematics, and assuming you are discussing integers and not natural numbers, then zero is even. However, in the real world, if you're at the roulette table and you bet "evens" and the ball lands on 0 or 00, you lose.
to make the game more profitable for the casino.... duh

i know 0 is neither negitive or positive but what about odd/even i think its even
odd nimbers start at 1 and go every other number 1,3,5,7;1,-1,-3,-5,-7
even starts at 2 and go every other number 2,4,6,8;2,0,-2,-4,-6,-8Neither. It's like asking if zero is positive or negative.Positive numbers exist on a continuum that comes all the way down from infinity to the smallest non-zero number, negative numbers start at the other end from negative infinity and go all the way towards the other series ending at the smallest non-zero number on the negative side and zero exists on the boundary. (Excuse the minor tatuology, but I wanted to keep that short and sweet, and still failed a little.) From this, we can indeed say that zero is not positive or negative, though it is often used as positive, given that it is non-negative (to be honest you could use it as negative given it is non-positive, but this just highlights the issue there). The division by zero issue does indeed show that there is a conundrum here, and perhaps the the ranges given above should each start from the respective +/-(infinty-delta) value given that the series 1/x symptotes to one infinity as you meet zero and then returns to a valid numeric range as it leaves on the other side, thus 'proving' in this number system) that both infinities are essentially the same (and are 180 degrees round the "infinite number circle" from zero?).

However, odd-ness and even-ness is not a continuous function, but a discrete (or is that descrete? I always get them the wrong way round) one in which a regular cycle of two is found in either direction along the number line for even numbers and another regular cycle of two (but disjointed by half a 'wavelength') exists for the odd ones, where straying an infinitesimal amount off of the whole numbers immediately takes you into an undefined boundary area (like zero for positivity/negativity, but inhabiting virtually the entirity of the number-line, in real terms, rather than virtually none of it like the single value zero in the whole real-number space) inbetween the positive-negative pairs. The even-cycle impacts upon reality at the point where zero exists. To not do so would require complex non-continuity or value limiting of the function, which is not necessary in the way that you need to avoid a division by zero by using a Signum calculation's "zero is zero and not negative or positive" statement to limit it (or something similar), and so by invoking the Holy Blade of Occam I'm happy (until such time as there's good reason to exclude it) to use the simplest working out and proclaim zero to be even. Definitely not odd, and there appears to be no practical reason for it to be undefined that actually relates to odd-or-even-ness.

don't know if this has been mentioned.

looking at it from a normal point of view (as normal as mine gets anyway). even numbers can always be divided into 2 groups. 2 friends, 1 guy 1 girl. 4 friends, 2 on your left 2 on your right, etc.. Odd numbers mean one group will be larger than the other. 3 friends, 2 girls and 1 guys, 7 friends, etc...
0 is nothing. as in you have zero friends. It refers to nothingness....

my little bit of drivle

don't know if this has been mentioned.

looking at it from a normal point of view (as normal as mine gets anyway). even numbers can always be divided into 2 groups. 2 friends, 1 guy 1 girl. 4 friends, 2 on your left 2 on your right, etc.. Odd numbers mean one group will be larger than the other. 3 friends, 2 girls and 1 guys, 7 friends, etc...
0 is nothing. as in you have zero friends. It refers to nothingness....

my little bit of drivle
The question about this is, do they make 2 equal groups of 0 or no groups at all....

The question about this is, do they make 2 equal groups of 0 or no groups at all....

but that's just it. Its neither.2 groups or 1, its is still nothing.

to make the game more profitable for the casino.... duhNot sure about Europe, but last time I played Roulette in the UK (there are places, and there may soon be more) we still only had a single 0.

'0' on a such a wheel is like a joker in a pack of cards. Wheels have equal odds and evens, reds and blacks, etc, and if they had no more then the average player would break even, with no practical profit for the casino (in the long-term) so the green 'zero' was added. Not as a sequence, but as a wild-card, as you now get 50% return on slightly less than half the wheel. '00' was added in Las Vegas (I think) as a 'second joker' to make that margin even more in favour of the house. The increased return on 0 and 00 do not make up for the unlikliehood that they occur, obviously, or there'd be no point, but they make very attractive targets for those feeling lucky.

Interestingly enough, last time I played the game I won big by chancing a small-but-not-insignificant bet on zero (alongside the rest of the spread, which I lost on) but then lost the whole winnings and remaining reserves on a all-or-nothing gamble during the next spin. Gambling is a fool's game, sometimes I'm a fool... :)

(The ideal end to that story would be that, in an attempt to not pushing my luck (and ignoring the laws of statistics that said it was just as likely), I then eschewed 0 in favour of spreading across Red and Odd or whatever, and it had 0ed once more. In reality it was a non-Zero, but I'd spread the entirity across Red and Odd when it came up Black and Even, or whichever combination it was. A pretty standard endgame and not poetic at all... Fun though! :))

Err... it -is- universally agreed upon, by mathematicians. The only people who have questioned it here have no background in mathematical theory.

Is there a mathematical reason why zero has to be defined as even or odd? Does leaving zero undefined in any way change any mathematical theorem, formula, or equation?

If it does not then this is simply an exercise in competing definitions. If that is the case then the mathematical definition holds no more sway than does the philosophical definition (zero as an absence of anything, therefore neither odd nor even), nor the gambling definition (at the roulette table zero is not even), nor the logical definition (all even numbers can be divided by 2).

Like so many things in the world, the meaning and definition of zero is relative to its context.

Is there a mathematical reason why zero has to be defined as even or odd? Does leaving zero undefined in any way change any mathematical theorem, formula, or equation?

If it does not then this is simply an exercise in competing definitions. If that is the case then the mathematical definition holds no more sway than does the philosophical definition (zero as an absence of anything, therefore neither odd nor even), nor the gambling definition (at the roulette table zero is not even), nor the logical definition (all even numbers can be divided by 2).

The meaning and definition of zero is relative to its context.

Mathematically, not having zero as even means that the even sequence is disjointed. Simple-being-best, consider it as even unless there's good cause not to.

Philosophically, zero counts for nothing (ahahaha... um.. uk... right) when dealing with physical quantites, but once you can accept that you can have zero sheep you can accept that those zero sheep can be split into zero in one paddock and zero in another. And if you're dealing with negative sheep (sheep in your paddocks that are not your own, and thus must be discounted from your total apparent flock) you might as well handle them mathematically and leave the gate open for zero being even. (Especially as, if you leave your gate open, you may well have zero sheep when you come back... Oh ho ho ho <chortle> :))

On the gambling table, 0 and 00 are mere tokens and could as easily be "*" and "#" for all the meaning they convey to the mathematics of gambling (and odds and evens being converted to upper-case and lower-case letters, etc).
Any given half of the (non-green) choices give 50% return but is marginally less than 50% possibly because of the one (or two) greens that exist. That the 36 non-greens are split in one direction by red/black, in another by odd/even and the remaining sub-units of nine by further arbitrary (but symetrical) divisions of three and various multiples thereof is really nothing to do with the numbers, save that it is more organised and understandable than arbitrary symbolic association.

My POV.

don't know if this has been mentioned.

looking at it from a normal point of view (as normal as mine gets anyway). even numbers can always be divided into 2 groups. 2 friends, 1 guy 1 girl. 4 friends, 2 on your left 2 on your right, etc.. Odd numbers mean one group will be larger than the other. 3 friends, 2 girls and 1 guys, 7 friends, etc...
0 is nothing. as in you have zero friends. It refers to nothingness....

my little bit of drivle
so if you have 0 friends you just have groups of 0 on either side of you

Algebraic definitions
Even number:
All numbers y that can be written as y = 2*x, where x is an integer

Odd number:
All numbers w that can be written as w = (2*v) + 1, where v is an integer

1) y=0
2) 0 is an integer
3) 2*0=0
therefor 0 is even

so if you have 0 friends you just have groups of 0 on either side of you

you can have as many groups as you want. nothing is still nothing. so it is neither odd nor even

Is there a mathematical reason why zero has to be defined as even or odd? Does leaving zero undefined in any way change any mathematical theorem, formula, or equation?


Yes, check out the taylor series expansions of the sine and cosine functions. You may notice a little pattern.

Anyway, to the person who thinks my second proof was invalid:

The reason k had to be 0 was because we stated that k could be any arbitrary integer. Then, we went on to prove that if 0 was not even, then k could not equal 0. But, since k could be -any- arbitrary integer, 0 should have been an acceptable value of k. Therein lies the contradiction, which is the basis of the proof. Basically, for 0 to not be even, the definition of even would have to be changed.


0 is a non-existant number. It is used to define something which does not exist or is against all logic.

Because it is non-existant, It is neither odd nor even.


Learn to read.


Neither. It's like asking if zero is positive or negative.


Learn to read.


Perhaps, in the world of mathematics, and assuming you are discussing integers and not natural numbers, then zero is even. However, in the real world, if you're at the roulette table and you bet "evens" and the ball lands on 0 or 00, you lose.


Don't be stupid. "Even" and "odd" are integer math terms, therefore it would be fallacy to assume that you're using them to describe just the natural numbers. Furthermore, your little argument relies on no mathematical basis, but rather the workings of a French casino game. That's absurd.

Zero is both even and a placeholder.

so if you have 0 friends you just have groups of 0 on either side of youyou can have as many groups as you want. nothing is still nothing. so it is neither odd nor even

1 can not be split (equally) into any number of whole groups (save the original 1, which applies to every number so I'm not counting it at all) so is plainly odd.
4 can be split into 2 twos and is provably even because even relies on the number two.
9 can only be split (equally) into three groups and is plainly odd because does not include 2
12 can be split (equally) into 2, 3, 4 and 6 groups of whole items. This does not mean it cannot be even. It basically is even, so there's obviously no problem being able to split it into
0 can be split (equally) into any number of groups, from the original "one group of none" (though I did say I wouldn't count that) through "two groups of none each", "three groups of none each" and basically "N groups of none each" where N is any numer at all. As already mentioned, the number 2 exists in there, so it is even, but it also divides nicely by Pi, e and even i ('j' to electrical engineers), leaving no remainder. Zero being a multiple of (zero times) any number isn't a problem, in my book.

In fact, re-arranging the formula 0 => 0*N gives you 0/0 => N, which means that you can also make zero collections of however-ever-many-you-want out of zero items... :)

Don't be stupid. "Even" and "odd" are integer math terms, therefore it would be fallacy to assume that you're using them to describe just the natural numbers. Furthermore, your little argument relies on no mathematical basis, but rather the workings of a French casino game. That's absurd.

Are you naturally an asshole or do discussions of mathematics bring out that side of you? The fact that we don't know each other is no reason for you to descend to insults in your post. For Christ's sakes, we are talking about the definition of a number.

What is absurd is to assume that mathematics bears no relationship to the world outside of theoretical math. Keep in mind that early mathematics - Chinese, Babylonian, Mayan, Egyptian, Hindu, etc. - all developed primarily as practical solutions to assist in agriculture, engineering, and business pursuits. It was also closely connected to early religions and its initial emphasis was on practical arithmetic and measurement, as well as its mystical connection to the divine order of the universe. Discussions of philosophy, psychology, and practical application are no less valid for not having originated in the world of theoretical mathematics.

However, if you find such discussions beneath you I suggest you refrain from responding to my posts, stupid and absurd as they are.

Algebraic definitions
Even number:
All numbers y that can be written as y = 2*x, where x is an integer

Odd number:
All numbers w that can be written as w = (2*v) + 1, where v is an integer

1) y=0
2) 0 is an integer
3) 2*0=0
therefor 0 is even
Did anyone say definition?

public boolean isEven (int n)
{
if (n % 2 == 0)
return true;
else return false;
}

isEven(0) returns true.


nuff said!

I agree with Kreen, last year I was in 8th grade in geometry and now I'm a freshman taking algebra II Honors, 0 is neither odd nor even

Hmm... And then you have those of us with college degrees in mathematics. And we all say it is even. Of course, it really doesn't matter what any of us say, since the community of professional mathematicians -- the real authority, after all -- agree that it is even.

-3 * 2 + 1 = -5. Is -5 odd?

Good for you. -5 is odd.

0 is even.

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20...

see the pattern?

2, 4, 6, 8, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 0

It's really simple, I don't see the problem... :confused:

Is there a mathematical reason why zero has to be defined as even or odd? Does leaving zero undefined in any way change any mathematical theorem, formula, or equation?

Yes.

Among other things, the even integers {...,-2,0,2,...} make a ring, which--to avoid the more complex mathematical explanation--means they have very "nice" properties that allow us to state a whole bunch of theorems on the set. But only if you include 0 as the additive identity.

Are you naturally an asshole or do discussions of mathematics bring out that side of you? The fact that we don't know each other is no reason for you to descend to insults in your post. For Christ's sakes, we are talking about the definition of a number.


We are talking about the very well-established definition of a number, that people like you are arguing against. To analogize, it's like someone who doesn't know a language trying to debate finer points of grammar with a native speaker. It's absurd. It's stupid. For all your philosophy and "real-world" yammering, you're never going to change the definition. It has been plainly stated over and over (and over and over) again, that no matter how you look at it, zero is an even number. After 19 pages of persistent idiocy, the answer is still the same. Opinions, polls, and philosophical reasonings, no matter how logical or well-constructed, still cannot defeat the fact that there is an accepted definition in mathematics for the number 0.

Therefore, we really only have several options to draw from here.

People who think that zero is not a number, or is not even are probably one of the following:

A) Illiterate. The definition has been posted as cited from legitimate mathematical text.

B) Ignorant. Not knowing is no real defense anymore, however, since the question has been answered plainly and truthfully.

C) Stupid. Faced with overwhelming evidence that zero is an even number, you cannot claim ignorance of the truth. Therefore, if you still reject the definition, you must be purposefully ignorant. You either don't want to believe it, or you have weighed your unqualified opinion against the unanimous acceptance of the mathematical community, and found your unqualified opinion to be the better judge. That would make you an idiot.

Since you can obviously read, and you have been well-informed on the subject, I'll let you work out which conclusion I have drawn, based on available data.

How the hell do you manage to have a twenty page discussion on whether zero is odd or even? Geez... :rolleyes:

We are talking about the very well-established definition of a number, that people like you are arguing against. To analogize, it's like someone who doesn't know a language trying to debate finer points of grammar with a native speaker. It's absurd. It's stupid. For all your philosophy and "real-world" yammering, you're never going to change the definition. It has been plainly stated over and over (and over and over) again, that no matter how you look at it, zero is an even number. After 19 pages of persistent idiocy, the answer is still the same. Opinions, polls, and philosophical reasonings, no matter how logical or well-constructed, still cannot defeat the fact that there is an accepted definition in mathematics for the number 0.

Therefore, we really only have several options to draw from here.

People who think that zero is not a number, or is not even are probably one of the following:

A) Illiterate. The definition has been posted as cited from legitimate mathematical text.

B) Ignorant. Not knowing is no real defense anymore, however, since the question has been answered plainly and truthfully.

C) Stupid. Faced with overwhelming evidence that zero is an even number, you cannot claim ignorance of the truth. Therefore, if you still reject the definition, you must be purposefully ignorant. You either don't want to believe it, or you have weighed your unqualified opinion against the unanimous acceptance of the mathematical community, and found your unqualified opinion to be the better judge. That would make you an idiot.

Since you can obviously read, and you have been well-informed on the subject, I'll let you work out which conclusion I have drawn, based on available data.

There is a mathematical mind set I have encountered over the years that sees the world in absolutes; as black and white, right or wrong. These people have difficulty with the liberal arts or less absolutist areas of life. Theirs is a logical universe with clear cut answers to specific problems. No grays, no uncertainty, no touchy-feely, messy arguing.

Unfortunately, their attitudes often translate into a particular kind of teaching style, found predominantly among math teachers and professors, which similarly see the world as a series of simple right and wrong binary functions. These people, such as you Scaena, cannot fathom why anyone could not possibly see what is so obvious to themselves. There it is, they say. There is the answer. There is the formula. There is the definition. Why don't you get it? Are you stupid, or what?

These people have gravitated to math because they, like most of us, follow the path of least resistance. They have an aptitude for math or feel comfortable in math's world of certain answers and clearly laid out formulas. For most of these people math’s truths have come easily, so they often have a difficult time understanding those who struggle with them. These same people are usually the same ones who decry the lack of math literacy among the population at large, and specifically young people. Why, they say, are America's young so stupid when it comes to math?

Part of the answer is because of people like you, Scaena. We have a forum here of people with all degrees and levels of math literacy. Many of us are not of the world of math, but are fascinated enough by the discussion to pop in, ask a question or two, and maybe even venture an observation. Rather than seeing that as an opportunity for bringing someone into an area you obviously love by having some patience to answer questions brought up (I have yet to see you respond to any question or point about why zero should be left undefined other than to point to a formula and say, “see, stupid”), you prefer to insult, further reinforcing the idea that math is only for those select few who "get it."

You may know math, but you don't know shit about people. Which do you think is more important?

How the hell do you manage to have a twenty page discussion on whether zero is odd or even? Geez... :rolleyes:
i would like to know that my self

but now i go to moderation to ask for a lock as this seems to be turing in to a flame fest

i would like to know that my self

but now i go to moderation to ask for a lock as this seems to be turing in to a flame fest

As I said before, Right Thinking, I found this to be an interesting thread. As a non-math person it sent me off to find out more about the concept of zero and its history. Thanks for sparking that interest.

Learn to read.

Learn to read.

Don't be stupid. "Even" and "odd" are integer math terms, therefore it would be fallacy to assume that you're using them to describe just the natural numbers. Furthermore, your little argument relies on no mathematical basis, but rather the workings of a French casino game. That's absurd.
Are you naturally an asshole or do discussions of mathematics bring out that side of you? The fact that we don't know each other is no reason for you to descend to insults in your post. For Christ's sakes, we are talking about the definition of a number.
Okay, I don't know who started this, but I'm going to finish it.

Scaena and Ogiek: Official warnings - Flamebait.

iLock.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator