From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023

Under the mathematics section, it states that 0 is an even number because it is evenly divided by 2 with no remainder...this is not correct. 0 is not divided evenly by 2. 174.62.3.242 ( talk) 08:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 08:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply

it states that 0 is an even number because it is evenly divided by 2 with no remainder...this is not correct. 0 is not divided evenly by 2.

This is simply an incorrect statement. Two incorrect statements in two sentences, actually.
If you look up wikipedia's own article on Parity (mathematics), which discusses the definitions of even and odd numbers, you will see that 0 is specifically listed as an example of an even number. 2605:A601:AE17:9C00:7D92:16C5:BF08:2FC1 ( talk) 00:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Unsupported statement

The current version of the article states:

The idea that 0 is a number just like 1, 2, 3, etc. was likely figured out very early, as soon as numbers were used to keep track of any type of trade, since having none of an item was just as possible as having several of them, and was well established pre-history. Most of the following is discussing zero as a placeholding digit, not as a number.

This is a completely unsupported statement - and beyond that, almost certainly incorrect.

Yes, people certainly figured out early on that if you have three sheep, and then you give away three sheep, now you have no sheep. But the issue is, did they conceptualize "0 [as] a number just like 1, 2, 3, etc." and the answer is, almost certainly they did not.

It is one thing to understand "I don't have any sheep" or "I am not holding up any fingers" or "I don't have any money " or "my abacus totals no value". It is another thing entirely to have a specific number to write down that concept, on the same basis as you are able to write down 1, 2, 3, and the other counting numbers, and yet another thing to consider that number to be on equal footing with the other numbers in the sense that you can add it, subtract it, multiply it, and divide with it (or understand why that final operation causes problems).

If they did have that level of understanding of the number zero, they would have had, at a minimum, a symbol for zero - not just a placeholder used in certain specific situations where we would use the numeral '0' today, but not in other similar situations and never all alone. And we would not have had centuries of struggle and partial solutions to the thorny issue of how to deal with "nothing" as both a placeholder in number systems and as a number itself. We would have had instructional materials explaining how to add zero, how to multiply and divide by zero, and all such similar things.

What we have is nothing of the sort until very late.

As Robert Kaplan writes in The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero regarding the Greek number system ca. the 4th Century B.C.: "There was still a long way to go from the key insertion in writing of a sign for 'nothing in this column' to such symbols as '106' or '41.005°' (the 'numerical' form of 41° 00'18")" (pp. 19-20) and "In other words, 'nothing' wasn't a thing, a number, but a condition" (p. 22).

In short, unless someone can provide actual support for this sentence, and reliable citations backing it up, it should be removed entirely. 2605:A601:AE17:9C00:7D92:16C5:BF08:2FC1 ( talk) 00:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Based on the above information I edited the sentence mentioned and replaced it with an accurate statement with citation. Bhugh ( talk) 01:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I've removed the statement entirely. Neither the old nor the new one was cited and neither was encyclopedic in tone, and didn't add anything to the article. The section does not need a summary opening paragraph. WPscatter t/ c 01:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Protect the Site

Please Protect the site from vandalism. AarushSinha10 ( talk) 12:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Many editors work hard to remove vandalism, and a few pages are protected as necessary. If you see specific vandalism, please revert it, or mention it on the article's talk page if you need help with that. Certes ( talk) 12:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Problematic text in the android version of the article

In the android app version of the article I just read "I like when my coom spreads into my daddys face ....", as an introductory text before the "quick facts" box. I don't find it on the web and I can't remove it since the page is semiprotected ! Tho-Maigre ( talk) 20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I have absolutely no idea where it is coming from. I've been trying to find it, but to no avail. I think it is being generated by a template, but I cannot figure out how or which. Panamitsu ( talk) 21:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply
It was coming from Module:Technical reasons. Vandalism now fixed. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Mayan Numeral Zero

Why isn't it recognized that the 'shell shape' is simply a closed fist? Given that a unit is indicated with a glyph of a fingertip or toetip, and 5 is indicated with a glyph of a flat hand, or foot, this closed fist glyph is thematically identical to the absence of a knot representing zero in quipu.

Am I the only modern person who knows what a closed fist looks like? 2600:8800:711E:5600:F903:C9A:7EB9:ED8F ( talk) 06:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Well we need it to be published first before we can use this snippet of information. Posting here is not a reliable source. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Naught-Not merger

Not should be yet another name added, which I'm unable because editting is blocked 31.182.142.83 ( talk) 02:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

No. "Not" is not a name for zero; it is just that to speakers with the "naught-not merger" (much/most of N America), "not" is a homonym for "nought", which is not generally used in N America. We do not add "ate" as another name for 8. Imaginatorium ( talk) 03:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

〇 as Zero, has no relation to Zetian.

〇, used for zero, comes from □. The use of □ for zero, began sometime during the Southern Song dynasty. This began to be written as 〇, at least as early as the book 数学九章 (might actually be 數書九章?), from 1247, written by Qin Jiushao. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Zetian character 〇, from five-six centuries before, that meant star. All Zetian characters fell out of use, shortly after the end of Wu Zetian's reign, in 705. The Zetian character 〇, would thus have been pretty much long forgotten, by 1247, and there is no reason to think that 〇 as zero, replacing □, is anything other than independently invented, and completely unconnected to the Zeitan character. Thus being a completely separate/different character. The only thing they have in common, is that they look the same. Nor is there any indication that the use of 〇 for zero, was an influence from Arabic numerals. Especially as it is only the West Arabic numeral that is circle-shaped, with the East Arabic (and also Indian) being a mere dot.
(see also: ja:漢数字#〇) 94.255.211.44 ( talk) 07:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

"0" in the time and calendar values of a digital clock

"0" is the first hour value, the first minute and the second who are represented by "00" in the digital clocks. Its 100 abbreviated years are represented by numbers from "00" to "99". Its adjustment will must be done secularly, except in multiple secular years of 400.

179.98.235.119 ( talk) 09:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ 179.98.235.119 I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you want us to add this to the article, or are you treating the talk page like a forum? — Panamitsu (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

positional number system

So imagine you were a reader wanting to understand the use of 0 in positional number systems. You get some information about this in the lead section, but if you head down to the section titled "Mathematics" all you get is two mushy sentences (preceded by a sentence telling you that this usage is not what the section is about). The history section does have a lot about the history of its use in positional systems, but that's mixed in with its other uses and split up by culture and era. I'm mildly inclined to create a section with a title like "In positional number systems" under "Mathematics" with a main article link to Positional number system; thoughts? -- JBL ( talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I say go for it. We can discuss it from a historical perspective in "History" and a modern one (e.g., how it works for any radix) in "Mathematics". XOR'easter ( talk) 19:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Ok I'll give it a go in the next few days (please ping if this turns into a lie). -- JBL ( talk) 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I did a thing. (Unfortunately that thing did not involve digging up appropriate references for the short summary :/.) I think the lead section is quite good and the history is not my expertise but also seems solid; the prose in the mathematics section could use work (as well as separating out the ideas of 0 as smallest counting number from 0 as additive identity, which both have generalizations that are discussed but are really independent properties), I'll see what I can do with it next. -- JBL ( talk) 18:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Under heading "Elementary algebra", I propose expanding the first sentence to read: The number 0 is the smallest nonnegative integer and also the largest nonpositive integer.

(addition: " and the largest nonpositive integer") Ciabaros ( talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done GrayStorm( Talk| Contributions) 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:0&oldid=1220713685"