Re: OT: is zero a mathematically positive number?

I guess that doctorate of math comes in handy!!!

Tony

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Petr Lapukhov
<petr_at_internetworkexpert.com>wrote:

> I can continue this discussion forever.
>
> The interesting thing is that zero in common sense means nothing, and
> "nothing" but it's definition does not exist. Thus in math they
> usually tend to refer to it as a "neutral element". From phylosophical
> standpoint you can treat "zero" apophatically (negatively) by telling
> what zero is NOT. From this standpoint it's neither positive or
> negative, nor anything else.
>
> You could also treat zero "dialectially" as a "unity" of both
> "negative" and "positive" elements, since 0=1+(-1)+2+(-2)+... This
> point of view treats zero as a sum of all "potentials" compensating
> each other and has an interesting illustration as physical vacua. As
> you know, in quantum mechanics there is no "nothing" - there are
> special "zero fluctuatios" which produce pairs of
> particles/anti-particles which cancel each other. Other interesting
> model of "nothing" available for years is Dirac sea resembles the same
> idea. The concept "something out of nothing" is common in many
> creationist concepts, which are mostly religious.
>
> Lastly, zero could be viewed as opposite to infinity, e.g. 0=1/inf and
> we may think that there are positive and negative infinities leading
> to positive and negative "zeroes". This is how they introduce
> infinitesimal elements to hyperrial numbers. However, firstly this
> leads us to the smallest quantities possible but not the zero. Plus,
> in it's "naive" form this interpretation is problematic, as it
> replaces one metaphysical concept (nothing) with another (infinity).
> There is no consistent theory of inifinity yet (well, maybe with
> exception to the success of non-standard analysis) and probably will
> never be. Just recall all the paradoxes of the actual infinity.
> Besides, right now there is known a whole hierarchy of infinities (N,
> Aleph1, and so on if you accept Kanthors theory) which makes it
> difficult to select the one opposing the single zero.
>
> As for your example, Jonny, here is a problem. The apex surely has the
> "measure" of zero (e.g. Lesbegue measure) but still the cardinal
> number of the apex set (roughly, the number of the elements in set) is
> non-zero. This is to illustrate the different concepts of "quantity"
> available in mathematics :)
>
> --
> Petr Lapukhov, petr_at_INE.com
> CCIE #16379 (R&S/Security/SP/Voice)
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> Outside US: 775-826-4344
>
> 2009/6/9 Jonny English <redkidneybeans_at_gmail.com>:
> > 0 can be a positive number only when its followed by a $1. The more 0's
> the
> > more positive the 0 becomes......
> >
> > i'm going back to playing at ogame.org now....
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Marc La Porte <marc.a.laporte_at_gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Totally OT, but good fun I guess... just to get out mind off things ;-)
> >>
> >> I had a math teacher who was able to mathematically proof that 0 (zero)
> is
> >> a
> >> positive number (meaning not neutral or negative). Obviously I cannot
> >> reproduce that, but...
> >>
> >> So, for all the math wizards out there (Petr?), amaze me with formulas
> ;-)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Marc
> >>
> >>
> >> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> Subscription information may be found at:
> >> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Jun 09 2009 - 07:58:40 ART