Topic awaiting preservation: just something i was thinking about.. (Page 2 of 2)

Insider: Sorry I have a habit of doing this, *habit

WS: lol...

But that raises another problem. If zero was Not A Number (NaN)... When a function returns a value in a program, and it's 0, shouldn't it return NaN, instead of 0? In which case, we still know zero can't be proved to be/not be a number, but *through technicalities* ( ) we find that it's not NaN either.

So WTF!

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 06-01-2002).]

no its habbit you bastards

ZERO, IS ZERO, IT IS ITSELF, IM SICK OF DEBATING, LETS LEAVE IT THIS WAY!

You still think it's habbit? Ok, suit yourself

Getting back on subject, I'm with WS on this one. We can't prove that zero isn't a number yet, and we can't prove that it *is* indeed a number. Being neither, it's basically undefined. And as such, it's not a number

[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 06-01-2002).]

close this thread please it is getting annoying

Don't close it, I would still like to debat. If you find it annoying, stop reading it

WS: I can understand your logic. Indeed anything divided by zero is undefined, but like Raptor said why does 1 - 1 = 0 and not NaN? I still believe that zero is the number that indicates no value, or a value of zero if you will.

absolutely nothing...

[This message has been edited by flashtongue (edited 06-03-2002).]

That's easy synax...yes 1-1=0....but that still does not define zero...because you cannot divide zero by itself...and you can with all numbers (any number divided by itself is one...except zero).

And the debate goes on....

Here [url]http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/52387.html[url] Most Math people do consider zero to be a number...although it is not defined...