Dividing Zero By Zero

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Having worked as an accountant, if the balance is zero, it means it has no value. It doesn't affect the balance sheet, income statement, accounts receivable, accounts payable, or anything else listed. It has no value, and is not part of the computation to arrive at balancing the financial statements.

exactly

but back to the origination of why zero was introduced into accounting , was the person to understand his own position as far as assets

zero sheep , cattle , certain crops etc.

not that the above didn't exist , they do , but rather you don't possess any of them

Quote:
Zero is quantitative nothingness, not simple nothingness. Here is the difference between zero and simple nothingness:

1. No number (simple nothingness) multiplied by zero results in one.
2. Zero (quantitative nothingness) multiplied by zero results in zero.

Quantitative nothingness is a number -- zero -- while simple nothingness is no number.

I disagree

because your argument is purely mathematical

whereas in accounting , zero is the absence of an object , whether it be monetry , cattle , sheep or land etc..

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

north wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Having worked as an accountant, if the balance is zero, it means it has no value. It doesn't affect the balance sheet, income statement, accounts receivable, accounts payable, or anything else listed. It has no value, and is not part of the computation to arrive at balancing the financial statements.

exactly

but back to the origination of why zero was introduced into accounting , was the person to understand his own position as far as assets

zero sheep , cattle , certain crops etc.

not that the above didn't exist , they do , but rather you don't possess any of them

Quote:
Zero is quantitative nothingness, not simple nothingness. Here is the difference between zero and simple nothingness:

1. No number (simple nothingness) multiplied by zero results in one.
2. Zero (quantitative nothingness) multiplied by zero results in zero.

Quantitative nothingness is a number -- zero -- while simple nothingness is no number.

I disagree

because your argument is purely mathematical

whereas in accounting , zero is the absence of an object , whether it be monetry , cattle , sheep or land etc..

The nonexistence of a number that multiplied by zero equals one is not purely mathematical, since a nonexistent number does not belong to mathematics. We are here in the frontier of mathematics, where we begin to consider not only quantity, but also quality. But we are still in the frontier, not yet beyond it: it is my argument in the beginning of this thread that goes beyond this border. Besides, even if my argument were purely mathematical, this is no valid reason for disagreement.

Regarding zero, I just showed the difference between its nothingness, which is of a purely quantitative nature, and simple, whole, or full nothingness, which is also qualitative. Zero concerns the quantity of nothingness, not its quality, which is what makes it a number -- zero -- instead of just nothing, as I showed in my argument you just referred to. The reason why you may perfecly consider zero as referring to cattle, sheep, or land, is because the number zero does not concern the quality of cattle, sheep, or land, but only their common quantity, just like one, two, or any other number. This is the power of mathematics -- as also its weakness -- its abstraction of quality to favor only quantity.

1 Reply

@guigus,

No matter how you slice zero, it's still zero. It has no value in accounting or math.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No matter how you slice zero, it's still zero. It has no value in accounting or math.

You insist in finding a way of identifying zero with nothingness, which makes you ignore my point: zero is quantitative, not qualitative, so it doesn't have the simplicity you want it to have -- of being simply nothing. Zero is more complicated than that: it is quantitative nothingness, as I already showed:

1. No number (simple nothingness) multiplied by zero results in one.
2. Zero (quantitative nothingness) multiplied by zero results in zero.

You are simply disregarding this, which will not lead you much far.

1 Reply

@guigus,

In "quantitative parlance" zero equals nothing. In any math calculation, if the result is zero, it means there is no quantity in terms of any measurement. The interpretation of zero is the same for everybody who looks at it.

2 Replies

From the freedictionary.com:

Quote:

ze·ro (zîr, zr)
n. pl. ze·ros or ze·roes
1. The numerical symbol 0; a cipher.
2. Mathematics
a. The identity element for addition.
b. A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration.
c. An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin.
d. An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.
3. The temperature indicated by the numeral 0 on a thermometer.
4. A sight setting that enables a firearm to shoot on target.
5. Informal One having no influence or importance; a nonentity: a manager who was a total zero.
6. The lowest point: His prospects were approaching zero.
7. A zero-coupon bond.
8. Informal Nothing; nil: Today I accomplished zero.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being zero.
2.
a. Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value.
b. Informal Absent, inoperative, or irrelevant in specified circumstances: "The town has . . . practically no opportunities for amusement, zero culture" (Robert M. Adams).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

In "quantitative parlance" zero equals nothing. In any math calculation, if the result is zero, it means there is no quantity in terms of any measurement. The interpretation of zero is the same for everybody who looks at it.

If "the interpretation of zero is the same for everybody who looks at it," then how are we disagreeing? You should stop one moment to think about what you say.

Besides, you give the precise meaning of "quantitative nothingness" when you say that zero "means there is no quantity in terms of any measurement." That is precisely what zero means: the quantitative aspect of nothingness.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

From the freedictionary.com:

Quote:
ze·ro (zîr, zr)
n. pl. ze·ros or ze·roes
1. The numerical symbol 0; a cipher.
2. Mathematics
a. The identity element for addition.
b. A cardinal number indicating the absence of any or all units under consideration.
c. An ordinal number indicating an initial point or origin.
d. An argument at which the value of a function vanishes.
3. The temperature indicated by the numeral 0 on a thermometer.
4. A sight setting that enables a firearm to shoot on target.
5. Informal One having no influence or importance; a nonentity: a manager who was a total zero.
6. The lowest point: His prospects were approaching zero.
7. A zero-coupon bond.
8. Informal Nothing; nil: Today I accomplished zero.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or being zero.
2.
a. Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value.
b. Informal Absent, inoperative, or irrelevant in specified circumstances: "The town has . . . practically no opportunities for amusement, zero culture" (Robert M. Adams).

You should listen to the dictionary, then:

Quote:

Informal Nothing; nil: Today I accomplished zero.
adj.

Notice the emphasis on the informal character of such an interpretation of zero as the same as nothingness: mathematically -- that is, formally -- zero regards only the quantitative aspect of nothingness. Even the dictionary is telling you that, and I hope you listen to it (since you don't listen to me).

As I already showed, despite having no value, zero is different from the absence of any number that multiplied by zero results in one, which is the absence of any number: despite being nothing, zero is still a number, precisely because it is only quantitative nothingness, rather than absolute nothingness. You are having such a hard time getting that...

Or, as the dictionary is telling you, you are holding the informal meaning of zero, while I am remembering you of its formal, rigorous meaning.

1 Reply

@guigus,

What you fail to see is that former values that results in zero still means the same; zero. That previous or intended values doesn't carry to the number zero; it's value is nothing. You start and end with a blank. It doesn't matter what happened in between when it comes to math or accounting.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What you fail to see is that former values that results in zero still means the same; zero. That previous or intended values doesn't carry to the number zero; it's value is nothing. You start and end with a blank. It doesn't matter what happened in between when it comes to math or accounting.

Are you accusing me of holding that zero has a value different than zero? Sorry, but I neither did nor would ever hold such an absurdity.

You still don't get it: zero has no value, and I never said otherwise. Zero is quantitatively nothing, and I never said otherwise. What I am saying is that its nothingness is not qualitative, but only quantitative. Zero, like any other number, does not make any difference between zero cows, zero dollars, or zero planets: it regards only the quantity of those things. That is the meaning of a quantitative nothingness. A qualitative nothingness, by contrast, regards also quality, by referring to the nothingness of something in particular. Confusing zero with nothing is totally misunderstanding mathematics.

Again, here is the difference:

1. Nothing multiplied by zero equals one.
2. Zero multiplied by zero equals zero.

You simply cannot replace "zero" by "nothing" and say that "nothing multiplied by zero equals zero," which would be a lie, since zero multiplied by zero equals zero: zero and nothingness are different concepts -- any mathematician would tell you that.

0 Replies

One could object that, conversely, we cannot say "nothing is different from zero" without saying "everything is identical to zero." But we must consider the alternative of zero being the same as nothing, according to which:

1. Nothing -- or zero -- multiplied by zero equals zero, which means there is no number that equals zero when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

So "everything is identical to zero" must be true, as indeed it is: zero divided by zero is any number -- since any number multiplied by zero equals zero -- so all numbers are the same, by which:

1. All numbers are identical to everything, since they lose their identity, as thus their specificity.

2. All umbers are identical to zero, since all numbers are the same.

3. Everything is identical to zero, since all numbers are both everything and identical to zero.

Finally, we must notice that nothing is identical to zero, since all numbers are identical to everything, which makes them false -- as much as true -- making everything false, or thus nothing -- including zero. By which:

1. Nothing -- or any number -- multiplied by zero equals zero.

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one.

This is the only sense in which zero is truly identical to nothing: the sense in which all numbers are everything, which in turn is nothing by being false.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

A fallacy that cannot be proved.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Quote:

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

A fallacy that cannot be proved.

If zero is the same as nothing, then we can replace "nothing" by "zero" in the sentence "nothing multiplied by zero equals one," so it becomes "zero multiplied by zero equals one": where is the fallacy?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

agreed

Quote:

A fallacy that cannot be proved

what fallacy ?

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Quote:

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

A fallacy that cannot be proved.

If zero is the same as nothing, then we can replace "nothing" by "zero" in the sentence "nothing multiplied by zero equals one," so it becomes "zero multiplied by zero equals one":

why though do you do this , zero = nothing , and nothing =zero ,

Quote:

where is the fallacy?

because both are the same examples of the samething

nothing and zero , one is in words , spoken language , nothing , the other zero , is mathematical

1 Reply

@north,

north wrote:

guigus wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:
Quote:

2. Zero -- or nothing -- multiplied by zero equals one, which means there is a number -- zero -- that equals one when multiplied by zero, hence is false.

A fallacy that cannot be proved.

If zero is the same as nothing, then we can replace "nothing" by "zero" in the sentence "nothing multiplied by zero equals one," so it becomes "zero multiplied by zero equals one":

why though do you do this , zero = nothing , and nothing =zero ,

Quote:
where is the fallacy?

because both are the same examples of the samething

nothing and zero , one is in words , spoken language , nothing , the other zero , is mathematical

Did you even read my post? It says that "nothing" cannot be replaced by "zero" in the sentence "nothing multiplied by zero equals one." Are you saying that zero multiplied by zero equals one? If "nothing multiplied by zero equals one" is true and "zero multiplied by zero equals one" is false, then zero must be different from nothing, don't you agree?

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

Quote:

nothing multiplied by zero equals one.

Show us how this works in the "real" world? Zero (or nothing) times zero (or nothing) can never equal 1.

No oranges times no oranges will never equal 1. Where did that one orange appear from? You have a very good imagination.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

In "quantitative parlance" zero equals nothing. In any math calculation, if the result is zero, it means there is no quantity in terms of any measurement. The interpretation of zero is the same for everybody who looks at it.

that's actually not true

there is a whole sub-world of mathematics that runs around the discussion of the meaningS and useS of zero

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

That's probably why I'm not privy to understanding how zero can mean more than how I understand it. I've never been exposed to the "sub-world of mathematics."

My career was in accounting and administration of several companies, and zero always meant it had no value, and it never translated into "1."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The mathematics used in accounting is only one form.

My best friend's dad is a retired mathematics professor whose specialty area over the past 60 years had to do with zero and its uses. Zero doesn't always mean zero.

If you're interested in it, you could always audit some grad level couses.

1 Reply

Dividing Zero By Zero

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know