Is Zero a standard or a reality?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical and mathematical implications of zero as a standard versus its reality. It argues that while zero is a foundational concept in mathematics, it represents "nothing," raising questions about its existence as a valid standard. The conversation explores the idea that zero and one are closely related, with zero gaining meaning only through context provided by one. Participants suggest that zero can be perceived through the absence of something, emphasizing the importance of perception in understanding its significance. Ultimately, zero is affirmed as a real number, despite its abstract nature, highlighting the complexities of defining existence and reality in mathematical terms.
scott_sieger
Another post has been discussing standards used in measuring an observable.

We attach a number as a value to use to create other numbers.

So I thought I would open a discussion on the standard or reality of Zero.

If Zero is a standard but not a reality it would have to be the most important standard we have for all other figures we arrive at rely upon it..So am I right in saying that mathematics is founded on an standard that actually by it's absolute nature can not exist because it is zero or nothing.

How can Zero be arrived at in the form of formula? Only as a imaginary concept I would suggest, certainly not as an absolute reality.

So if it dosn't exist is it a valid standard?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Zero is a real number.

- Warren
 
In reality there are only zero's. They are conceptually ones. Or there are only ones made from nothing.

Zero carries no meaning in the absense of context - one being the context.

Perception of things is a time (motion) oriented operation. We more or less percieve zero through a lack of perception verses the conceptual perception of it.

Zero and one are very much alike - Like the front and back of a door.

Dats my schtick.
 
I doubt I really understand the question, but if I do then I can prove that zero is real: I have zero dinosaurs in my pocket. Ignoring that a dinosaur wouldn't fit in my pocket, zero is describing the number of dinosaur/s and that above statement is a true statement, so zero must be a number. Obviously, zero exists, and that which exists is real.
 
The symbol for zero is appropriate - A circle with nothing in it. Three dimensionally ... an empty sphere would put you in the realm of reality - There being nothing inside the sphere, and infinitely nothing outside it. This is the equivalent of one nothing. In this sense ... one nothing is a thing. All that is required now is to have more of them, and the motion of them to facilitate their perception.

Perception comes to you like this - 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 000 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.

This is the same as ones and zero's... where zero comes to you as separate entities ... one after another. This separation is the key to your perception. (One) provides the distinction. (One) is not the thing but the perception of a thing - The conceptual understanding of nothing through the advent of motion.

You are the reality of Non-Existence, and I expect (nothing) else from it.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top