How it has proved the number zero is nonsense and meaningless in mathematics?
112402
That's untrue.  Quite in fact, the absence of the zero stifled the advancement of mathematics in the west for a long time.  Zero is a number of fundamental importance.\n\nI don't know where you're getting your info.  Perhaps someone got an award from some group of idiots that thought he was being clever, but zero is far, far, far, far, far from being nonsense.\n\nSomeone is jerking your chain, bro.  Give up onit already.  You need to recognize that you were duped and move on.
548895
It isn't known isthere are *any* odd perfect numbers, but even if there are, the asymptotic density is zero.
57970
does 1+1=2 is actually a really good question because there is really no way of proving it. Because numbers are abstract(they are not real) they represent other things. But if you look at the equation 1+1=2 you will actually see that by itself it makes no sense because one plus one does not equal a two symbol. so without subsituiting the number symbols for actual things the equation is irrational and cannot be proven.
696843
Check MathForum.org:\n\nQuestion:\nWhat is the quantity 0^0 (zero to the zeroth power)?  Would it be \n0, since 0 times anything is 0, or would it be 1, since anything to the 0 power is 1?  Or is this undefined, too?\n\nAnswer:\nThis, too, is an indeterminate form.  Its logarithm is 0 * infinity.\n\nMore detail from the website:\nSay you wish to introduce a new element (or maybe two elements) infinity which you wish to append to the real number system.  That is not prohibited.  After all, that is how we got from natural numbers to integers (appending negative integers and zero), and from integers to rationals (appending ratios of integers), and from rationals to reals (appending limits of convergent sequences), and from reals to complexes (appending the square root of -1).  What you end up with is not the real number system, however.  Furthermore, if you wish to define the four operations + - * and / for this new system, you probably want them to be the same on real numbers, and just add on the definitions of things like infinity + r and r/infinity, for any real number r.  Some of these work fine.  It makes sense to define:\n\n        infinity + r = r + infinity = infinity\n  (-infinity) + r = r + (-infinity) = -infinity\n                infinity + infinity = infinity\n          (-infinity) + (-infinity) = -infinity\n                       infinity - r = infinity\n                    (-infinity) - r = -infinity\n                       r - infinity = -infinity\n                    r - (-infinity) = infinity\n             infinity - (-infinity) = infinity\n             (-infinity) - infinity = -infinity\n        infinity * r = r * infinity = infinity  for r > 0\n  (-infinity) * r = r * (-infinity) = -infinity  for r > 0\n        infinity * r = r * infinity = -infinity  for r < 0\n  (-infinity) * r = r * (-infinity) = infinity  for r < 0\n infinity * infinity = (-infinity) * (-infinity) = infinity\n infinity * (-infinity) = (-infinity) * infinity = -infinity\n                       infinity / r = infinity  for r > 0\n                    (-infinity) / r = -infinity  for r > 0\n                       infinity / r = -infinity  for r < 0\n                    (-infinity) / r = infinity  for r < 0\n                       r / infinity = 0\n                    r / (-infinity) = 0\n\nWhere we get into trouble is with defining the following:\n\n        infinity + (-infinity)\n     (-infinity) + infinity\n        infinity - infinity\n     (-infinity) - (-infinity)\n               0 * infinity\n        infinity * 0\n               0 * (-infinity)\n     (-infinity) * 0\n        infinity / infinity\n        infinity / (-infinity)\n     (-infinity) / infinity\n     (-infinity) / (-infinity)\n        infinity / 0 = infinity\n    (-infinity) / 0 = -infinity\n\nThese expressions are called "indeterminate forms."  These can all have a large range of different values, depending on exactly where the "infinity" parts came from.\n\nAs a result, the system you construct is not closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.\n\nOther indeterminate forms are 0^0 and 1^infinity.\n\nSo the answer, is 0^0 is undefined or indeterminate.
1038119
The misconception is that dividing by zero produces infinity. However, if the number divided by zero is negative, the result would be negative infinity. Therefore, division by zero is undefined.\n\nHowever, it is possible to describe this in terms of limits. For example, as x -> 0, 1/x -> infinity. However, at no time is x = 0.
189562
This is not simply a quirk of our usual number system: in any number system that satisfies certain basic properties such as distributivity and associativity, 0 multiplied by anything will give 0. So if you start with any non-zero number x, there cannot be any number which when multiplied by 0 gives you x, so there can be no answer to the question "what is x divided by 0". Mathematicians say that "division by 0 is undefined", meaning there is no way to define an answer to the question in any reasonable or consistent manner.
1073227
Zero is such a complicated number.   If you look at the way numbers are sequenced -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 etc. it would appear to be even.  There is a problem, however.  Zero came from the Arabic Hindu system and was considered a placeholder.\n\nZero is used as a place holder.  Numbering systems start with #1 and progress to 9.  1 starts over in the tens position and is followed by the placeholder 0 so we know one is in the tens position and not the single unit position.  The same is so for 20 and 30 and so on and so forth.  Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, so on and so forth.\n\nNow back to the numbering sequence -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3.  Zero is a placeholder and is neither odd or even.  It is a null value.  You have heard of zip, zilch, nada?  That is zero.\n\nZero was brought to the West by a mathematician named  Fibonacci some time in the 1200s.  It made numbers a lot easier to write.  Most numbers were written with a space where a zero would go today.  Made for lots of problems.  The numbers could only be understood in the context of the writing and could never be used by themselves.   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 etc.  These are writen in sequence so you know the 2nd 1 is really a ten.  But standing alone, it still looks like 1.\n\nThe computer age really stirred the pot.  Programing in the binary system put 0 before 1.   Auuuuuuuuuugh! as Charlie Brown would say.  The computer needed continuity in the old on/off programing in binary language.  When 0 followed 1 the computer wouldn't compute.\n \nWhen people count, it is assumed that zero (or nothing) comes first before we have something (1).  But we couldn't use it as a placeholder, because one is a single unit.  There is nothing to hold a place for.  10 is another situation.  Zero is holding an empty unit spot.\n\nYou can have the shovel now, I think I've dug a deep enough hole. (0)  Chuckle.
877046
Are we counting the number of times the digit zero appears?  For example, would 1,000,000 result in 6 zeroes?  If so, you can count the zeroes as follows:\n\nFirst, count the numbers of the form nnnnnn0... 10, 20, 30, ..., 100, 110, 120, ..., 999990, 1000000.  Every 10th number will have this form, so that is 100,000 zeroes in the units place (don't count zero, but do count 1 million).\n\n1,000,000 * 1/10 = 100,000\n100,000 - 1 + 1 = 100,000\n\nNext, count nnnnn0n... 100, 101, 102, 103...  109, 200, 201, 202, ... 209, .... 999900, 999901, 999902, ..., 999,999, 1,000,000.  This would be 10 out of every hundred numbers, so that is 99,991 zeroes in the tens place.  (You don't count 0 to 9), but you do count 1 million.\n\n1,000,000 * 10/100 = 100,000\n100,000 - 10 + 1 = 99,991\n\nNext, count nnnn0nn.  This would be 100 out of every thousand numbers, but not counting 0 to 99, but counting 1 million.  So that is 99,901.\n\n1,000,000 * 100/1000 = 100,000\n100,000 - 100 + 1 = 99,901\n\nNext, count nnn0nnn.  This would be 1000 out of every ten thousand numbers, but not counting 0 to 999, but counting 1 million.  So that is 99,001.\n\n1,000,000 * 1000/10000 = 100,000\n100,000 - 1,000 + 1 = 99,001\n\nNext, count nn0nnnn.  This would be 10000 out of every hundred thousand numbers, but not counting 0 to 9999, but counting 1 million.  So that is 90,001.\n\n1,000,000 * 10000/100000 = 100,000\n100,000 - 10,000 + 1 = 90,001\n\nFinally, count n0nnnnn.  Without a leading digit, none of the numbers except 1 million would have this pattern:\n\n1,000,000 * 100000/1000000 = 100,000\n100,000 - 100,000 + 1 = 1\n\n100,000 + 99,991 + 99,901 + 99,001 + 90,001 + 1 = 488,895\nSo the answer is that the digit zero appears 488,895 times in the numbers from 1 to 1 million, inclusive.
301417
I'll try. I gave this proof to THREE people already:\n\nTake any two ordinary constants. (e.g. x and y)\nMake them alike, as in x = y = any non-zero number (in this case, 2)\nMultiply each by y, but x works equally well (y²=xy).\nSubtract x² from each equation (y²-x² = xy-x²).\nFactor y²-x² into (y+x)(y-x) to make ((y-x)(y+x) = xy-x²).\nFactor xy-x² into x(y-x) to make ((y-x)(y+x) = x(y-x)).\nDivide by (y-x) to get (y+x=x).\nSubtract x from both sides of this equation to get y=0.\nThis means that y=0.\n\nbut since, y equaled 2 in the first case, that means 2 = 0.\nIf you multiply this equation by 2.5, you get 5 = 0.\n\nSince 0 + 0 = 0, you can plug in 2 for the first two zeroes, and five for the last one, and then, TA DA! 2 + 2 = 5.\n\nP.S., this proof has a little falsity in it. you can't divide by (y-x) because that is zero!
1040908
Zero is not that intuitive and was ‘invented’ for at least two reasons (and not at the same time). It is a place holder like in 10 but we cam also say that 10 is X in which case we do not need a place holder. It other application it represents 'nothing'. What is nothing? cayou imagine 0 pencils? What color are they, what shape? If you think carefully it becomes an uncomfortable concept. It took zero to appear before mankind for quite sometime.
163896
yes the previous equation mentioned would "prove" it, but the problem occurs as you're dividing by zero.  you can also make 1=2, with a similar process, involving the division of zero.  if you don't get what i mean, the previous explanation has this:\n\n(x-y)(x+y)=y(x-y)\nx+y=y\n\nwhat happens at this step?  you are dividing by (x-y).  since x=y is given, then (x-y)=0, thus you are dividing by 0, which is impossible in math.
153279
Zero (0) is a paradoxical number that has high philosophical and scientific importance. Context of zero in absolute & applied Mathematics is different. In applied mathematics we use it according to our convenience, for example 0 degree celsius, 0!(factorial), initial Velocity, initial position etc. And in Absolute Mathematics we think of it transcendently. Absolute zero is beyond our experience.Therefore we are using and thinking of zero in diffrent context. \nIn the fraction a/o, at present the numerator `a' is considered as something that is considerable. And the denominator `0' is not used in the absolute sense insted it  is taken in the concept of `infinitesimally small'.That is the symbol `0' here stands for `infinatesimally small'.For instance a `point' is considered as magnitude and dimensionless which is relatively true and wrong in the absolute sense.\nContext a/0=a is also correct iff same meanig is strected all through. ie. a/0 implies `a' is `undivided'.Then a*0 means a is not at all multiplied, hence a*0=a only in the absolute sense. Here `a' which is the quotient and  the product is same to both expressions implies that `a' is individual and Independent.This concept is non-pragmatic hence not in use.\nMathematically,a=(1+1+1...`a' times).\nGeneraly, if a/m =n, a=m*n = (m+m+m+...`n' times) \nAnd, if m is infinatesimally small,a=(m+m+m+... infinite  times).At present the parodoxical symbol `0' is used to denote the axiom `infintesimaly small'.consequently. it is written as a/0= `Infinity'\nNote that divisibility exists iff something exists in the denominator.And in the same way multiplicability exits iff something exits as multiplier.
647936
The answer is 1 - you're raising a quantity to a power of 0, which always results in 1. The quantity within the parentheses contains no division by zero, so I know it's a real number, too.
829570
zero(0) has a value when there is another number to its left.
759729
I think, therefore I am.\n\nAssume 1 does not exist.\n\nLet x = 0\nLet y = 2\n\nAny pair of numbers have a number between them, known as the arithmetic mean.\n\nTake the arithmetic mean of x and y:\n(x + y)/2 = (0 + 2)/2 = 1\n\nBut we now have a result of a number that shouldn't exist.\n\nSince we have a contradiction, this proves that our initial assumption was incorrect.\n\nTherefore 1 exists -- proof by contradiction.
483994
Zero, zip, zilch - how often has a question been answered by one of these words? Countless, no doubt. Yet behind this seemingly simple answer conveying nothing lays the story of an idea that took many centuries to develop, many countries to cross, and many minds to comprehend. Understanding and working with zero is the basis of our world today; without zero we would lack calculus, financial accounting, the ability to make arithmetic computations quickly, and, especially in today's connected world, computers. The story of zero is the story of an idea that has aroused the imagination of great minds across the globe.\n\nWhen anyone thinks of one hundred, two hundred, or seven thousand the image in his or her mind is of a digit followed by a few zeros. The zero functions as a placeholder; that is, three zeroes denotes that there are seven thousands, rather than only seven hundreds. If we were missing one zero, that would drastically change the amount. Just imagine having one zero erased (or added) to your salary! Yet, the number system we use today - Arabic, though it in fact came originally from India - is relatively new. For centuries people marked quantities with a variety of symbols and figures, although it was awkward to perform the simplest arithmetic calculations with these number systems.\n\nThe Sumerians were the first to develop a counting system to keep an account of their stock of goods - cattle, horses, and donkeys, for example. The Sumerian system was positional; that is, the placement of a particular symbol relative to others denoted its value. The Sumerian system was handed down to the Akkadians around 2500 BC and then to the Babylonians in 2000 BC. It was the Babylonians who first conceived of a mark to signify that a number was absent from a column; just as 0 in 1025 signifies that there are no hundreds in that number. Although zero's Babylonian ancestor was a good start, it would still be centuries before the symbol as we know it appeared.\n\nThe renowned mathematicians among the Ancient Greeks, who learned the fundamentals of their math from the Egyptians, did not have a name for zero, nor did their system feature a placeholder as did the Babylonian. They may have pondered it, but there is no conclusive evidence to say the symbol even existed in their language. It was the Indians who began to understand zero both as a symbol and as an idea. \n\nBrahmagupta, around 650 AD, was the first to formalize arithmetic operations using zero. He used dots underneath numbers to indicate a zero. These dots were alternately referred to as 'sunya', which means empty, or 'kha', which means place. Brahmagupta wrote standard rules for reaching zero through addition and subtraction as well as the results of operations with zero. The only error in his rules was division by zero, which would have to wait for Isaac Newton and G.W. Leibniz to tackle.\n\nBut it would still be a few centuries before zero reached Europe. First, the great Arabian voyagers would bring the texts of Brahmagupta and his colleagues back from India along with spices and other exotic items. Zero reached Baghdad by 773 AD and would be developed in the Middle East by Arabian mathematicians who would base their numbers on the Indian system. In the ninth century, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi was the first to work on equations that equaled zero, or algebra as it has come to be known. He also developed quick methods for multiplying and dividing numbers known as algorithms (a corruption of his name). Al-Khowarizmi called zero 'sifr', from which our cipher is derived. By 879 AD, zero was written almost as we now know it, an oval - but in this case smaller than the other numbers. And thanks to the conquest of Spain by the Moors, zero finally reached Europe; by the middle of the twelfth century, translations of Al-Khowarizmi's work had weaved their way to England.\n\nThe Italian mathematician, Fibonacci, built on Al-Khowarizmi's
1052440
The trivial zeros are at (-2K+0i), where K is a positive integer. The nontrivial zeros are all the others. It has been shown that the nontrivial zeroes must have a real part between 0 and 1.