0 is a state of vacant affair. Because if you add anything to 0, it contains it. By the fact it's at least a container, 0 is not nothing. I am willing to listen to any counter arguments. Go.

>>16743419 (OP)
you’re 100% correct OP. learn what an empty register is in computer science.

>>16743419 (OP)
I have no idea what nothing is beyond the vague idea of "absence of anything"
0 is a kind of nothing yet it's not "not anything" because it exists as a concept nested within the concept of numbers
your point is kind of trivial
0 is not the same thing as "not anything"
nothing is not the same thing as the number 0
>duh I guess but I like where you are headed with thinking about this stuff

>>16743419 (OP)
0 literally means nothing. I have 0 apples that means I have no apples. I have nothing.

Stop trying to over complicate simple things.

>>16743580
there is no thing simple about nothing

>>16743584
You’re an idiot. Stop overthinking it’s not that deep.

Words and numbers are just symbols that represent ideas. They aren’t real.

Damn what kind of sharingan is that

>>16743597
sure it's simple if you aren't rigorous
you still have not defined nothing so ultimately it's not simple

>>16743597
how are ideas more fundimentally real than numbers? to my thinking numbers are the most fundimentally real things there are
>i.e. ideas are made of numbers

>>16743626
They are tools humans use for a point of reference. They are not real they don’t exist.

We made them up for our own use.

>>16743419 (OP)

>>16743639
seems unlikely given fundimental particles are composed purely of numbers

>>16743639
Numbers do exist. There is the 1 pattern and the 2 pattern. Alongside their count potential is a higher ordinant pattern.

>>16743651
Particles don’t contain numbers dummy. Numbers aren’t real you don’t see numbers in reality.

Humans write numbers that’s the only time you see a number.


Numbers are abstract tools of measurement.

>>16743712

Patterns aren’t numbers. Patterns are a repeating sequence of something.

Stop being dumb and confusing man made things with nature and reality.

>>16743729
>Particles don’t contain numbers dummy
particles -are- numbers

>>16743419 (OP)
x=x+0
Adding 0 on the right side is exactly the same as adding nothing on the left side because nothing and 0 are exactly equal.

>>16743578
>0 is not the same thing as "not anything"
Yes it is, it is different than unknown or undefined, but it is exactly the same thing as not anything.

>>16743597
Then how exactly is it simple and uncomplicated if it is arbitrary and imaginary?

>>16743580
It means you have a concept of having no apples you retarded assfucker. That itself is not nothing. Fucking drooling brain dead asshead,

>>16744071
No, once you figure out no apples and learn to apply it to any other thing, x, besides just apples, you also have a concept of not having anything and everything else too, extremely closeted homosexual which lands you at >>16744063 where nothing and 0 are exactly equal.

Too many of the retarded in this thread

>>16744112
0 is at least a container. if 0 was nothing. 1 + 0 = 0. 100 + 0 = 0. Because it doesn't contain anything. Or the state of nothing must also contain number.

And patterns are real things, and there are patterns of each number.

>>16744119
No, if 0 were nothing adding it to 1 would be like not adding anything at all (1=1+0), and that is exactly how it works.

You are exactly describing the multiplicative annihilator function of 0, though since 1*0 does equal 0.

>>16744122
No, retard. If 0 is nothing, it doesn't contain anything, and thus 1 + 0 = 0. But 0 is a state of vacant affair, it contains, so 1 + 0 = 1.

>>16744145
>it doesn't contain anything
It only contains itself.

>and thus 1 + 0 = 0
No, thus 1 * 0 = 0.

>1 + 0 = 1.
Yes because adding 0 to 1 such as on the left side is exactly the same as adding nothing to 1 like on the right side because nothing is exactly the same value as 0.

>>16744148
No, retard. 'nothing' means it's not even a container. Adding 1 to 0 wouldn't stick a 1, 0 would annihilate the product.

>>16744152
If you have 0 apple you still have your hands and the rest of you. There was never really nothing at the 0.

0 is a state of vacant affair.

/Thread

Any crackademic word delusionists can fuck off.

>>16744154
Vacant literally means nothing is there, retard.

>>16744153
If you have 0 apples, 0 hands, 0 (You), and absolutely 0 everything (ie a completely empty set), you have nothing.

>>16744158
Not even 0, you don't have you.

>>16744169
There is 0 you and everything else which makes exactly nothing, absolutely 0 things.

>>16744172
But you're there to make the claim it's 0 things. 0 isn't even a concept if it's nothing. Tardcake.

As it stands...
/Thread

>>16744178
Yes it is, it is the concept that you can quantify nothing as the exact arithmetic value of 0.

>>16744183
If your thread is done, then delete it and next time you can save yourself some time by not even making the retarded thread to begin with.

>>16744187
>>16744185
Retards, ignored.

>>16744178
So you made a thread discussing the concept of nothing because nothing isn't even a concept?

>>16744192
Read the OP. It says rightly that 0 also is a container. It's not nothing.

>>16744194
They can both contain and they are both concepts.
You can't put anything in a full container, there has to be some kind of empty nothingness if you want to contain something else in it.
Pure 0 contains exactly nothing and only nothing because they are the same thing.

>>16744202
No. Leave. You're making reader's crackademic word delusionists who believe in a mystical kind of 0 that is free of anything else.

>>16744204
It is, 1 represent a unit of anything and 0 is free from all 1s because it is specifically defined as the nothingness that remains when every 1 is removed.

You are the one that said you closed, the thread, so you should fuck or or delete the thread so no one else is exposed to your retarded nonsense where you claim the thing you made the thread about isn't even a concept that a thread can be made about.

>>16744202
Meds. Now.

>>16744207
Meds

You are a mystic. Not a mathematician. Pass whatever you're smoking.

>>16744208
>>16744209
I accept your concessions now you can actually follow through on your repeated promise of ending the thread and delete your retarded nonsense for the benefit of the board.

>>16744209
0 is a state of vacant affair. Proven logically in the OP. And by the looks of how retarded some of these counter arguments are, there is no debate.

>>16744212
Weak mind detected.

>>16744213
So now your argument is that 0 is words words words instead of anything to do with math immediately after you just said people who use words are mystics instead of mathematicians?

>>16744215
Yes since the only mind you can truly every interact with directly is your own, you probably detect that kind of thing every minute of every day.

>>16744216
0 also contains.
If it didn't contain.
Anything added to 0 would vanish.
Given it doesn't.
We can say it also contains.
Thus 0 is a state of vacant affair.

/Thread

>>16744220
>0 also contains.
In the exact same way nothing does, you can add things on top of nothing just like you can add numbers to 0, if you put something in a container that had nothing, it doesn't magically disappear either.

Please follow through for once and actually delete the thread or stop piling on retarded nonsense and repeating it over and over without adding anything or applying any mathematical proofs.

x=x+0
adding nothing is the exact same as adding 0 because they represent the exact same thing

The next reply is reserved for a complete retard.

>>16744224
>On top.

So 0 also lays on a ground or are you being mystic again? Fucking delusional crackademian

>>16744227
Thanks for showing up for your reservation, absolute retardation appreciates your complete dedication to being retarded.

>>16744227
Add it *to* 0, implies 0 is a containment or a locale.