In maths the first number is zero(0)surely there`s got to be the last number.Just curious?!?
605317
Numbers, such interesting topics. Think of it like this. If you have one tomato, and you add another one, you have two. add another one, you have three. This process never ends. although, scientists are still researching about what infinity is. for now, we shall stick with what we got.
835878
There's a better way of looking at it.\n\nFor every real number x in [0,1) you define D(x, n) as the nth decimal of x.  This is defined for every natural number n.\n\nFor x=1/3, we have D(1/3, n) = 3 for every n.  The number 0.3333... (the dots are important, they indicate that the nth decimal is a 3 for every n) is not "very close" to 1/3, it does not "tend toward" 1/3.  It is EXACTLY the number 1/3.  Show me a number other than 1/3 and I will show you that its decimal representation is not 0.33333...\n\nFor 0, we have D(0,n) = 0 for every n.  There is never a '1' decimal.  If you give me an arbitrarily small number 0.00000...1, the digit 1 is at a finite position p.  I can then reply with a number such that D(x,n)=0 for all n<=p, and D(x,p+1) = 1.  That number is greater than zero and smaller than the number that you gave me.  \n\nThe 0.5 = 0.49999... thing is just a quirk of decimal notation.  We can formally prove the equality as follows:\n\nLet a = 0.5, i.e. D(a, 1) = 5 and D(a,n) = 0 for all n>2.\nLet b = 0.4999..., i.e. D(b, 1) = 4 and D(b,n) = 9 for all n>2.\n\nProof by contradiction that a=b: Let's suppose on the contrary that a > b.  This means there must be a number x between a and b.\n\nLet's figure out the digits of x.  Since x is less that a=0.5, its first decimal must be a 4.  D(x,1) = 4.\n\nThe second decimal of x must be 9 since x > b `> 0.49.\nThe third decimal of x must be 9 since x > b >0.499.\nAnd so on, the nth decimal of x must be a 9 because x > b > the number y such that D(y,1)=4, D(y,i)=9 for i=2 to n and D(y,i) = 0 for i>n.\n\nTherefore x has exactly the same digits as b=0.499999... (I just showed that for every n, the nth digit of x is the same as the nth digit of b), and so x=b.  Contradiction, ergo a = b.\n\nThat's the difference between 0.499999... vs. 0.5 and 0.0000...1 vs. 0.  In the latter case, it is possible to find a number that is between the two.
352166
8\ntake away o from top and you're left with o on bottom - half - nothing\nor i guess 10 could work, too (or any double digit ending in 0) take away the first number and you're left with 0
512112
Since you can always add 1 more to an number, there IS no biggest number.\nIn mathematics, it is even possible to add 1 to infinity.
230430
The square root of -1 has no relation to zero.  It requires an imaginary number.  Division by zero is, unfortunately for our number system, impossible.  You cannot cut something into zero pieces, and in fact the very statement makes no sense.
68748
uhm, ZERO!  0x2=0  what, did you fail basic math?
579225
Division by zero is undefined, even if you divide zero into zero.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
1137788
Nope, 0/0 could be 1 but it could also be anything else.   Division is the opposite of multiplication and 0 times anything at all, even infinity, is still zero.
747950
It's many years since I did maths but shouldn't there be an = somewhere? And isn't there normally "y" too? I thought it would be fun to stretch my brain for a change but...Am I being obtuse?
234792
There are COUNTING NUMBERS: 1,2,3,.... These are"closed" for addition and multiplication. I.e. you only get a counting number when you add or multiply them.\n\nBut if we try to subtract them we get 0 and negative numbers which with the counting numbers make the INTEGERS.\n(... -2,-1,0,1,2,...)\n\nBut if we try dividing the integers we get rational numbers of the form a/b, like 33/47 or 34/17. (Integers are considered to be I/1).  When expressed in decimal form they either end in zeros or have a repeating pattern in the decimal (1/11 = 0.090909...)\n\nBut if we start taking roots we get numbers that cannot be expressed as a rational number.  These are IRRATIONAL NUMBERS.  Their decimal form has no repeating pattern - it's random digits. The square root of 2 or the cube root of 5 for example.\n\nThe rational and irrational numbers together make up the REAL numbers which account for all the points on the number line.\n\nThere are other ways to split the real numbers - algebraic (solutions to algebraic equations with real coefficients) or transcendental - those that are not the solution to any algebraic equation - Pi or e.\n\nThe next one that you didn't ask about is "imaginary" numbers.  The even root of a negative number.  They're not really imaginary but are very useful in electromagnetic theory for instance.  (The square root of (-1) really just means "1 at an angle of 90 degrees", Juat as -1 can be thought of as "1 at an angle of 180 degrees")
367158
(0! + 0! + 0! + 0! + 0!)!\n\n\n0^0 is undefined.
457166
This is a Frequently Asked Question. Following is my previous answer:\n\nThis question may be asked so frequently (along with the infamous 0.999...) because no concrete axioms or definitions are ever given for the real number system until one studies higher algebra or real analysis; it is assumed that everyone knows what a real number is until then. The proliferation of these questions show that this assumption is no good.\nFor the sake of conciseness, I will not define what a real number is here, as only the algebraic structure of the real numbers is necessary to answer this question. The algebraic structure of the real numbers is what we call a field. A field is an algebraic structure that follows a finite set of axioms. These axioms define what statements are true and false in this system based on the laws of logic. You can find the field axioms here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Field.html .\nEach line is preceded by "For all real numbers a, b and c, the following is true...". Note that the proper form of the additive identity and multiplicative identity is that it prescribes the existence of some number 1 and some number 0 such that the equations hold. These same numbers are then used to prescribe the existence of additive and multiplicative inverses.\nDivision a/b is just shorthand for a*(b^(-1)). So in your question, you are looking for 1*0^(-1). It is easy to show that there is no such number as 0^(-1) in any field. Suppose 0^(-1) exists.\nThen 0*0^(-1) = 1. But multiplying both sides by 0^(-1) gives 0 = 0^(-1), which means 0*0 = 0 = 1. This is obviously false.\nSuppose 0 = 1. 0*a = a for all numbers a. But 0*a = (1 + (-1))*a = a + (-a) = 0. Thus 0 is not equivalent to 1 and our sole assumption that 0^(-1) exists must be false. Thus the expression 1*0^(-1) is undefined in a field.\nProof by contradiction is very powerful for many types of statements.\nAs to the limit argument, note that you are evaluating a limit of the function f(x) = 1/x. As we approach 0 from the negative x-axis, this limit decreases without bound, but as we approach 0 along the positive x-axis, the limit increases without bound. Thus, the limit of f(x) at 0 does not exist, so f(0) remains undefined with no continuous way to complete it. The limit is not indeterminate for this function; it does not exist.\nWhile 1/0 is not defined in any number system, |1/0| is defined as positive infinity in extended number systems (which are not fields by the above argument) for various purposes. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffinelyExtendedRealNumbers.html .
595633
When you are dividing by something you are trying to find out how many of a certain amount (say, 3) is in another amount (say, 12). The result for my example, is of course 4, since 3 goes into the number 12 four times.\n\nNow the number 0 is nothing, literally. So if you're dividing into, say 12, you're wondering how much nothing is in 12. That's just not possible, because 12 is all "something".\n\nI hope that's clear enough...I tried.\n\nEdit: The guy above me is wrong.
525085
There is not last number of numbers. In the binary system, or for any system for that matter, you could always add digits to it and the number would increase by at LEAST a power of 10.\n\nInfinity could be the last number, but contrary to popular belief, it is not a number, rather a term stating that something has no end
72221
This is just a sneaky way of getting back to your question\non "0!".\n    This is the real answer.\n The definition of n! is a recursive one. It has a recursive\npart and a base. The recursive part is:\n                n!=n*(n-1)!\nThe base is:    1!= 1\nSubstituting 1 for n in the recursive part we get\n                1!=1*(1-1)!   The left side is defined as 1 and simplifying the right side we get\n                1=1*0!  and of course 1 times anything is\nitself so we get  1=0!  \n     Just thought you should know.
306774
Anything divided by 0 is actually undefined, not infinity or 0. When you think about how that works, it makes sense:\n\nDividing a numerator by smaller numbers makes your number larger. Divide 4 by 2, you get 2. Divide 4 by 1, you get 4. Divide 4 by 0.5, you get 8. And so on until you are dividing by a number so small it's pretty close to 0. The overall number gets larger and goes off into infinity.\n\nBut, if you divide a negative number in the same manner, your number gets smaller. -4 by 2 is -2, -4 by 1 is -4, -4 by 0.5 is -8, etc. As you approach 0, your numbers go off into negative infinity.\n\nYou'll have the same weird effect if you divide by negative numbers - a positive divided by an increasingly smaller negative will yield negative infinity, and a negative divided by an increasingly smaller negative will yield positive infinity.\n\nYou can't have it both ways - dividing by zero yields both a positive and negative infinity! So someone a long time ago decided that since a number can't really have two values, it will be undefined.
827218
Mathematics wouldn't be as advanced as it is today without the zero. This is because you may have noticed that 0 is very 'powerful' meaning that if for example i had the following expression:\n\n999999x8575x75238x652938x753928x7539042x34173x0\n\nthe answer would be 0. \nIt is this type of number that helps in simplifying alot of equations in calculus. Believe me, without the number 0, planes would not have been to fly!