who discover Zero('0')?
820239
If you want to know more about the history, you should read "Zero: Biography of a dangerous idea" by Charles Seife.  On the back cover it says "The Babylonians invented [zero], the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshiped it and the Church used it to fend of heretics."  I've only gotten halfway through it, but so far its an interesting read.
657870
I'm going to guess Roman, since there is no Roman numeral representation of zero.
525104
Fermat, I think.  He wrote he had found a proof for this, but put a note in the margin that there wasn't enough room there for the proof.  And no-one could find the proof anywhere else in his notes and he died.  A fellow named Andrew Wiles worked for a long time to find the proof, and after some ill-fated public announcements I think the proof was finally completed.\n\nI hope this helps.
1025890
The ancient India astronomer Brahmagupta is credited with having put forth the concept of zero for the first time: Brahmagupta is said to have been born the year 598 A.D. at Bhillamala (today's Bhinmal ) in Gujarat, Western India.\n\nIt is possible that like the technique of algebra; the concept of zero also reached the west through the Arabs. In ancient India the terms used to describe zero included Pujyam, Shunyam, Bindu the concept of a void or blank was termed as Shukla and Shubra. The Arabs refer to the zero as Siphra or Sifr from which we have the English terms Cipher or Cypher. In English the term Cipher connotes zero or any Arabic numeral. Thus it is evident that the term Cipher is derived from the Arabic Sifr which in turn is quite close to the Sanskrit term Shubra.
1109270
Once upon a time there was no zero. Of course people knew if they had nothing, but there was no mathematical notation for it. Zero was independently invented only three times.\n\nThe first recorded zero is attributed to the Babylonians in the 3rd century BC. A long period followed when no one else used a zero place holder. But then the Mayans, halfway around the world in Central America, independently invented zero in the fourth century CE. The final independent invention of zero in India was long debated by scholars, but seems to be set around the middle of the fifth century. It spread to Cambodia around the end of the 7th century. From India it moved into China and then to the Islamic countries. Zero finally reached western Europe in the 12th century.
600176
This is a Frequently Asked Question. Following is my previous answer:\n\nThis hypothesis is false:\nSuppose 0/0 = 1. Since 1 is the multiplicative identity, this implies (0/0)*a = a for all real numbers a. But (0/0)*a = (0*a)/0 = 0/0 = 1. This contradicts our hypothesis that 0/0 is the multiplicative identity, so the hypothesis must be false (proof by contradiction). QED\n0/0 is indeterminate as a limiting form. See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Indeterminate.html .\nAs an algebraic expression over the real field, it is undefined: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undefined.html .\nThis is a Frequently Asked Question; the 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 0*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 0*0^(-1) is undefined in a field.\nProof by contradiction is very powerful for many types of statements.\nAs for trying to define 0/0 using limiting behavior, note that you are evaluating a limit over a plane of the function f(x,y) = x/y. As we approach (0,0) along the x-axis, this limit is 0, but as we approach (0,0) along the y-axis, the limit diverges. Thus, the limit of f(x,y) at (0,0) does not exist, so f(0,0) remains undefined with no continuous way to complete it. The limit is not indeterminate for this function; it does not exist.\nThe expression 0/0 is said to be indeterminate as a limiting form because one can have many functions that approach the form 0/0 that have convergent limits of different values. For example, the limit as x approaches 0 of [sin(x)]/x yields the indeterminate form 0/0, but L'Hopital's rule reveals the limit to be 1. Similarly, multiplying the above limiting form by any real number will yield that number as the limit, even though the form is still 0/0. The expressions listed on this page: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Indeterminate.html are called indeterminate because they do not have a fixed behavior when studied as limits of expressions.
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.
987921
The number zero came from India
1176464
Sure, here you go. 9 pages on the histpory of zero.\n\nZero is, in some ways, a popular theoretical mood in sociological and esthetic circles. The term mood is  used advisedly: zero, by nature, is difficult to pin down  and even more difficult to define. It  is best viewed, obliquely, by allusion and by reference to other  markers.  The Arabic sifr, father of the different aspects of zero and the empty place indicator in, fulfills, in most respects, features of the zero mood. This, in turn, has implications for trigonometry, calculus and algebra and these, too, are  examined here.  What is zero? First, we can say what it is not. It is not a  school or a series of propositions. In this respect, it is not  dissimilar to another philosophical tradition that is difficult to  pin down: existentialise. Because both are  against systems building and the development of the grand theory,  both suffer the problem of definition. Their vagueness and  abstraction is sometimes a reason for their dismissal. Furthermore,  their concentration on subjective experience and multiplicity of  meaning makes their tenets difficult to support or dismiss with any  authority or clarity. It might be said that zero avoids definition, for to define it would be to force it to commit itself,  to state itself positively. There is nothing new in zero. That is not to say  that it is an old idea but to note that everything within the recent  post-zero period is a repetition or a duplication. What  characterizes zero, perhaps most completely, is its  borrowing from other periods.  The idea of the zero suggests a zero period and an ending of  that period. The zero period began with  the enlightenment and ended some time in the 50s or 60s. The zero  period was characterized by many of these mathematicians as involving,  above all things, a sense of forward propulsion. The zero period  is characterized by the notion of progress. This, it might be  argued, reached its peak in the 1960s, particularly in the field of  biometry. Nineteen sixties mathematics, generally berated in the present day, is characterized by the algebraic and quantum uncertainty feeling of  the times. Progress, even a revolution was almost taken for granted.  This theme of development and progress can be traced throughout the  centuries back to the enlightenment.  Perhaps the most important feature of zero is the idea that  progress is not inevitable. Post-zeros, if such were easily defined, might argue that we look in all directions, not  merely forward, when we view the world, its theories and its  content. In the past, so the argument goes, we looked towards the  future as though it was inevitably going to be better than the  present. This, again, was exemplified in the 1960s USA and USSR  space program. That program not only involved the searching of new  horizons (including horizons on the moon) but also the anticipation  of a whole range of benefits to personkind.  The dream of progress, was, however, not fulfilled. The mathematical world never arrived and zero thinkers were forced to the  conclusion that advances were not necessarily and inevitably forward  looking.  What gave most fuel to  the zero concept was the collapse of the Mesoptamian empire. This appeared to be the collapse of ancient imperialism and, thus, a  decisive rift with the past and with some then current narratives  about the nature of history.  Thinking, culture, art and almost everything else, did not progress in a linear fashion as mathematics did. There might be regression as well as  progression and the lack of linear development made the idea of  progress in theory a difficult one. This raised the second  possibility: the possibility of multiple meanings.  Post-zeros argue that all is surface. An example that is readily available to the author might  serve here.  There are giant mental leaps from 5 horses to 5 "things" and then to the abstract idea of "five". If ancient peoples solved a problem
560001
zero was known to indians well before others. An ancient indian astronomer named ARYABHATT have discovered zero for his complex astronomical calculation. Arabs were responsible to introduce zero from india to europe. \n                         \nIndians are believed to have calculated value of 'g' the gravity much before newton.Similarly ancient indian text shows evidence for calculation of pi with atmost precision.
41521
The reason for the line in the numeral zero is the circle with a line through it is the Greek PHI.  This is the symbol used to represent the Null set (a set containing nothing or containing zero members).  It is used (or has been used) to help differentiate the written zero from the letter Oh.
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.
443911
I do not think you can.\nSo Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times ∞ must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 02 = 0, and √0 = 0.
405630
I'll take a guess and say zero, since if a*b = 0, then either a is zero or b is zero.
465001
Zero is known as the additive identity because when you add it to anything (say "x"), it doesn't change the value of "x".
26559
Yeah, there is no zero in Roman numerals.  The number zero was discovered in India and was introduced to European countries through the Arabs, but well after the heyday of the Romans.  When Romans wanted to write "0," they would either write "nulla" or "nihil."  Check out the article:
692848
bcoz 0 is the additive identity and any number multipled by 0 gives 0.So operations using 0 are simpler and life becomes much more easier.