Talk:0 (number)

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A real number and is the integer between 1 and -1, which signifies a value of nothing. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Mathematics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant Not specified

"which represents itself" - is that correct or do I just misunderstand it? I've always learnt that 1 is the identity number. --Tom Vogt 07:03, 31 January 2008 (CST)

I don't know what the intended meaning is. I have deleted the offending sentence and reformulated the rest. -- Jitse Niesen 09:30, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Is binary a place holder/value system? --Robert W King 09:35, 31 January 2008 (CST)
I think place-value system means the same as what I would call positional system. In that case, binary, octal, decimal and hexadecimal are all place-value systems. -- Jitse Niesen 11:26, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Although binary uses "1" and "0", those are "On" and "Off" states, are they still positional/place-value? --Robert W King 11:30, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Yes, 1011 stands for 1*2^0 + 1*2^1 + 0*2^2 + 1*2^3 in the same way as 1026 stands for 6*10^0 + 2*10^1 + 0*10^2 + 1*10^3--Paul Wormer 11:42, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Ok; thanks for clearing that up for me. ;) --Robert W King 11:47, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Overlapping Articles

I am new and unsure how to indicate that there are two significantly overlapping articles, i.e. two articles about the number "zero". One is this one, and the other is here. If someone could either explain to me how I do this or just do it themselves I would appreciate it. Thanks! Blake R. Peters 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. In fact, I know of this overlap, and think that zero (mathematics is the better place because "0" is not only a number, but the subtle differences -- which often are mixed up -- are better explained on one page than on several. However, I have not yet made up my mind how to handle the other entries -- whether to simply have redirects, or have very short explanations with links in it. So I left this page as it is.
So, if you want to edit "zero" you should do it on the other page.
Regarding your "further reading": For such references we have the Bibliography subpage.
Moreover, Kaplan and Seife are popular books but cannot be recommended without reservations. They are not reliable and thus have to be read with care.
The history by Bourbaki is important, but as reference for zero?
Peter Schmitt 00:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that the Kaplan and the Seife should be recommended with a warning of sorts which I will be adding shortly. However, I believe there to be an important distinction between a "Further Reading" section and the Bibliography subpage. The Bibliography page is meant to provide a list of sources used or referenced specifically in the construction of the article, while a Further Reading section would provide what it names, a list of good jumping off points for a reader interested in further exploration of the article's topic. Also, I did find that Bourbaki was relevant, if not in an explanation of zero, in an exploration of the implications of zero and the lack of zero in a numerical system (particularly in the chapter on notation and combinatorial analysis.
Blake R. Peters 09:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)