-0 is a lesser number then 0.
-1 is also a lesser number then 0.
-0 and 0 are identical values
>what is set theory: the post
>>8046854
But one is a negative, the other a positive, therefor separate numbers.
>>8046861
They are separate numbers with identical value
>>8046863
A negative and a positive don't have identical value.
>>8046868
They do if the value is nothing in either case
>>8046876
Two objects that don't have any value doesn't mean they have equal value.
>>8046881
A*0 = 0 for all A in the reals.
-A = (-1)*A for all A in the reals.
-0 = (-1)*0 = 0.
Hello darkness my old friend
>>8046881
Nothing is the same value as nothing
>>8046897
Yes, exactly
-0 doesn't progress or digress any further on a number line than just staying at 0. It's literally just the same value.
-0 = 0
>>8046881
Uh yes it does
is 0i more or less than 0 or -0
>>8046881
Well we're not dealing with the irrational here, we're dealing with 0.
Two irrational numbers can totally be different, but having no value just means you equal 0
>>8046856
1=0
I don't give a shit if any of you understand.
>>8046845
There are no elements "-0" and "+0" in the set of real numbers, so you can't use them unless you have invented another set of numbers.
>>8046845
>oh shit i lost the Apple i didn't have (-0)
>oh shit i found no Apple (+0)
>still hungry
>>8046845
>oh shit i lost an apple i did not have (-0)
>oh shit i found no Apple (+0)
>still hungry
>>8047019
kek
this is a cringe thread with stupid question and stupid answers
>>8046854
Sure, buddy, next thing you will try to say .999... is the same number as 1.
>>8047025
it is
>>8046868
Anything multiplied by zero has an identical value to zero.
>>8046845
There is a negative 0, it just happens to be equal to the normal zero. For each real number a, we have a number −a such that a+(−a)=0. So for 0, we have 0+(−0)=0. However, 0 also has the property that 0+b=b for any b. So −0=0 be canceling the 0 on the left hand side.
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/667577/does-negative-zero-exists
>>8047026
Sure and somehow I bet you also want me to believe that somehow equals -e^iπ.
>>8047033
it is
If 0 equals nothing then would that mean that -0 equals something?
>>8047041
yes, it equals to nothing
>>8047041
Do you know what -10 times zero equals... what about -1 times zero?
>>8047033
>I bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa
>>8046897
Math is all lies made up of symbols and variables.
-0 = 10,000
0 = 1 million
-10 = 10,000,000,000
Therefore:
0 x -0 = -10
>>8046861
>>8046868
>>8046881
- can be a qualifier, identifier or opertation
you didn't specify
#syntax error
>>8046845
And here I was thinking that -0 is simply the inverse value of 0. . . .
Seeing as 0 has no intrinsic value then the inverse shares that same property.
Which is nil.
>tldr
x*0=0
x*-0=0
-0=0
>What is absolute value
>>8046845
>>8046881
Yes it does
No, -0 are larger than 0. Everyone knows this. If you remove nothingness you add something. It is common sense really.
>>8049347
-0 mean you owe nothing and have nothing, +0 means you have nothing and owe nothing. Its the same thing
>>8049351
but the lack of nothing must be the existence of something
>>8049374
-0 is not a lack of nothing. -0 is a lack of anything
>>8049351
No, stop thinking in terms of 'owe'. It is not mathematical. 0 is neither positive nor negative. It is a concept of nothingness, as a digit it is a placeholder, as a number it is the additive identity. Subtraction is the operation of removing objects from a collection. If we remove nothingess itself from a collection you add something. Think of a empty bag, if we remove the nothingness itself from the bag, you have put something in the bag.
>>8049377
but then what's 0
checkmate atheists
>>8049397
so 1 + 0 is somehow fundamentally different from 1 - 0?
>>8049374
>the lack of nothing must be
This would supply nothing with attributes. Nothing does not have attributes. Reasoning from nothing, or anti-reasoning from nothing, are both invalid in the context of logic.
>>8049406
No, if you have something you cannot remove nothingness because there are nothing to remove. If you have something and add nothingness you are left with what you had in the beginning.
>>8049428
0 is the same thing as 0+0, -0 is the same thing as 0-0. Are these things different?
>>8046854
Prove it.
>>8049372
ayyyy lmao
>>8049473
0 - 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0
>>8049479
>0 - 0 = 0
x-x=0
>0 + 0 = 0
0+0=2×0
2×0=0
>>8049479
That is not a proof, it is a statement that can be either true or false.
>>8049536
And since its true, the point is proved
>>8049542
As much as I want it to be true the dice told me it was false. Sadly.
>>8049533
Yes? Whats your point?
How large a bag do you need to hold - 2apples?
>>8049591
You dont need any space to hold -2 apples
>>8046943
WHY IS HE SO SMUG
>>8049636
>>8049591
I think it is sufficient with an non-existent bag.
10= 1+9
10-1=9
0=9
9/3,14=2,8
1/3.14= 0,31
2,8+0,31=3.184*3,14=9,99
0=9.99
>>8046845
> -0 + .5 = -0.5
> 0 + .5 = 0.5
/thread
h
r
e
a
d
>>8046882
Can't argue with that, even if you used both hands.
>>8049591
0 large
>>8049650
>>8049666
> using windows
> shitty resolution
> wolfram meme
> -0 magically turns into 0
back to the flames of hell, satan.
>>8049701
> -0 magically turns into 0
Because they are the same thing
Show me one way in which -0 is different or distinct from 0.
-0 have no symbolic meaning without syntactic context. The number n depends on the expression x - 0. 'Two multiplication' or 'three division' also lack symbolic meaning without syntactic context. When we write +2 or -2 we do not mean 'Two addition' or "Two subtraction' but where the numbers is located on the number line.
>>8049722
If 0 is the same +0, then x - 0 is not the same as x + 0. The expression -0,+0 is not defined without syntactic context. +0, -0 are not numbers, only 0 is.
>>8049743
What? + 0 and 0 are literally identical, just as +1 and 1 are the same thing, we just dont bother writing the + for positive numbers
I just don't get one thing. If there are -0 and 0, is there... --0??
- or + indicates which direction away from 0 a number lies on a number line so this thread is retarded
>>8046845
>you decide to try /sci/ because you like science and you wanna know what the great minds of 4chan are discussing
>a guy is asking about -0
dude, are y'all 7 or something?
>>8047019
>nobel prize
>mathematics
>>8051610
>great minds
>4chan
pick one and only one famiglioni
>>8049852
Yes, its identical to positive 0 which is identical to 0
>>8049722
Look at:
[eqn]\lim_{x\to y-0}f(x)[/eqn]versus [eqn]\lim_{x\to y+0}f(x)[/eqn]
They imply 2 completely different things.
This is especially important if you consider that f may not be defined to the left or right y.
>changing an existing fact
>trying to look smart by asking a rebelling question
>being a 12 year old fedora tier thread
Why do you guys even fucking do this shit? It's a waste of time, now go study for your finals. There are more important shit in the world.
>>8047268
This notation is both retarded and deliberately obfuscatory. It's counterproductive to the whole purpose of notation, which is to be precise with clarity.
>>8051755
Isn't it
[eqn]
\lim_{x \to 0-} f(x) \\
\lim_{x \to 0+} f(x)
[/eqn]
negative zero is a meaningless statement. It has no value. You're not applying a negative to anything. It's not impossible, it's just meaningless.
>>8052327
-1 * 0 = 0. Perfectly well defined.
>>8046882
Definition: (-a) is the additive inverse of a.
Axiom: x+0=0+x=x
Axiom: y+(-y)=(-y)+y=0
0=0+(-0)=(-0)
Therefore, 0=(-0), the additive inverse of 0 is 0.
-0 is higher number than 0
0 - 5 = -5
-0 - 5 = 5
>>8052318
That would imply that the limit is approaching zero and not y.
If [math] - 0 = 0 [/math], then [math] \frac{1}{-0} = \frac{1}{0} [/math], whence [math] - \infty = \infty [/math].
>>8053261
> treating infinity like a number.
Ok, let's play your game.
so, infinity = 1/0 = 1/(1-1) = -1/(-1+1) = -1/0 = - infinity.
Wow, you just might have completed changed Mathematics, anon. Congrats!
Can we move past high school calculus please?
>>8053450
I was satirizing as much as anyone else.
Then again, on a board where some people adamantly refuse to believe that [math] .999... = 1 [/math], Poe's law is relevant.
>>8046845
> Hello, bank employee. I wanna withdraw all my money.
> Ok. You have $1,000 in your account.
>So, now that you'll give me it all, I'll have in my account: 1,000 - 1,000 = 0.
>No, I'll have less than that.
>How?
> It's simple. 1,000-1,000 = -1 * (-1,000-1,000) = -0
>Oh yeah, you're completely true! I'm sorry. I don't wanna owe anything to the bank. How much should I deposit in order to have 0 in my account?
>hmm -0+x=0 => x=0;
>Ok, here, you can have $0.
> Nice! Now You have exactly $0 in your account. Thank you, have a nice day!
Then people ask why no one takes mathematicians seriously. You're all so far up your asses that you forget fucking kindergarten mathematics.
>>8052414
-0 - 5 = 5
(-1)(0) + (-1)(5) = 5
(-1)(0 + 5) = 5
(-1)(5) = 5
-5 = 5
Yeah, no.
>>8052414
> -0-5=5
>>8053470
your first statement is incorrect.
-0-5=-5.
>>8053479
I'm quoting >>8052414 directly
>0 - 5 = -5
>-0 - 5 = 5
To show that the second line is obviously wrong. Of course I know it's incorrect, it creates a contradiction.
Besides, writing -0 is exactly the same as (-1)0, and we all know multiplying anything by zero always gets you zero. I don't even know why I'm having this discussion, it's completely superfluous.
>>8053487
This kind of topic always takes my hope on this board.
this must be a troll...
>>8046861
-0 = -1 * 0 = 0
0 = 1 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 1
Newfriends can't into math.
>>8049644
That bag kind of has a existential crisis problem and would not suffice.
0 is the abscense of value
The signs + and - determine positive and negative values respectively
Since 0 doesn't have a value, it's meaningless to talk about positive and negative zeros, because positive and negative are only meaningful when we talk about numbers that represent a value that can be either + or -, rule that doesn't apply to zeros because they're the abscense of value
-1 + 0.999... = -0
>>8053873
> 0/0 = 1
what is calculus?
>>8046845
Name a situation, a single situation, where you would need to use -0 instead of 0
>>8054916
For all y including 0
x-y < r
the real numbers are a field with 0 as its additive identity and because addition is commutative in the real numbers it is distinct.
you can't have an inverse of an identity element.
>>8046845
Since -0 < 0 we can take their average to get the number between them, which I'll denote by a bar over it.
[math]\bar 0 = \frac{0 +(-0)}{2}[/math]
Therefore, 'average zero' is the true center o the number line between +0 and -0.
However that's not all, there are infinitely many 0s between these since now we can average the average 0 and any of the other 0s to get the other points, since the average of -0 and 0 bar is now halfway between those!
Remarkable OP, you've just opened up a can of worms to the most exciting discovery of our times!
>>8054922
and you need that for ...?
>>8054887
Completely irrelevant to that point.
you guys are fucking SILLY
>>8047002
I catch your drift
Whether you're "pretending" to be retarded or not, if you say -0 is less than 0 you're fucking retarded
>>8049473
0 - (-0) = 0 + 0 = 0
0 - (-0) = 0
0 = -0
![20160507_014740[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wPPNaHu.jpg "20160507_014740[1].jpg")
>>1
>>8047010
>Trying this hard.
Kind of cute, actually.
