Talk:0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 0 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Numbers Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

Looking for inspiration to help develop this article? Check out Pi, a featured article on a similar topic.

Not should be yet another name added, which I'm unable because editting is blocked 31.182.142.83 (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Not" is not a name for zero; it is just that to speakers with the "naught-not merger" (much/most of N America), "not" is a homonym for "nought", which is not generally used in N America. We do not add "ate" as another name for 8. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So imagine you were a reader wanting to understand the use of 0 in positional number systems. You get some information about this in the lead section, but if you head down to the section titled "Mathematics" all you get is two mushy sentences (preceded by a sentence telling you that this usage is not what the section is about). The history section does have a lot about the history of its use in positional systems, but that's mixed in with its other uses and split up by culture and era. I'm mildly inclined to create a section with a title like "In positional number systems" under "Mathematics" with a main article link to Positional number system; thoughts? --JBL (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it. We can discuss it from a historical perspective in "History" and a modern one (e.g., how it works for any radix) in "Mathematics". XOR'easter (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll give it a go in the next few days (please ping if this turns into a lie). --JBL (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thing. (Unfortunately that thing did not involve digging up appropriate references for the short summary :/.) I think the lead section is quite good and the history is not my expertise but also seems solid; the prose in the mathematics section could use work (as well as separating out the ideas of 0 as smallest counting number from 0 as additive identity, which both have generalizations that are discussed but are really independent properties), I'll see what I can do with it next. --JBL (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under heading "Elementary algebra", I propose expanding the first sentence to read: The number 0 is the smallest nonnegative integer and also the largest nonpositive integer.

(addition: " and the largest nonpositive integer") Ciabaros (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 02:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll specifically state the reason why this sentence isn't supposed to be in the article and also specifically state the reason how come its source be an unreliable one?

Bypassing the usual process of academic discussion and peer review a discovery was first reported in non-academic media in 2017 that the three samples from the manuscript were... ^[1] അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complaining that the first report was in "non-academic media" doesn't actually inform the reader of anything meaningful. That's true of many, many discoveries. Nor is it even a point that the given source puts emphasis upon: the bulk of that paper is about other stuff, and the We express regret that the Bodleian Library [...] chose a newspaper press-release and YouTube as media for a first communication bit is a single paragraph near the end. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter the bulk of the paper is on refuting the findings by the scholars on the field. The information that the library's findings was released without peer review and academic consultation is as critical as the library's media release of its findings.

that's true of many, many discoveries And for your information peer reviewed academic scholarly articles are the reliable sources for the encyclopaedias including the Wikipedia and it's policy clearly states that, not some sensational news breaking on fields of archeology, historiography, science and research articles. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first of all, it's not very civil to say "And for your information" while making a basic point that no one disputes. Yes, sensationalism is bad; yes, peer-reviewed journal articles are better for encyclopedic purposes than New Scientist. Second, the text of the peer-reviewed journal article in question doesn't back up the position that making a public statement before peer review was the most important aspect of the affair. It certainly doesn't back up the position that making a public statement before peer review is the only criticism worth mentioning. If all that we say is that a discovery was first reported in non-academic media, we are ignoring nearly the entirety of the Plofker et al. article. The text you proposed focuses in the wrong place, not only by using something that is true of many discoveries to denigrate this particular result, but also by misrepresenting the contents of the source you cite. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you XOR for articulating this so clearly. --JBL (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you for doing a very nice job incorporating the new source in a substantive and encyclopedic way. --JBL (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic at issue here is currently the fourth paragraph under History > Classical antiquity, beginning: "The earliest use of zero in the calculation of the Julian Easter" etc. This paragraph contains several errors and/or inaccuracies, based partly on a misunderstanding of the book by Otto Neugebauer (1979, repr. ed. 2016) that is cited in n. 28. After these mistakes are corrected, one might judge the entire paragraph to be superfluous and deserving to be deleted.

A basic misunderstanding here is that "a table of epacts as preserved in an Ethiopic document for the years 311 to 369 [. . .] was translated from an equivalent table published by the Church of Alexandria in Medieval Greek." The Ethiopic document referred to here was cited by Neugebauer (1979, 99 [2016, 93] n. 11) as "Jerus Arm 3483" fols. 193v–197r, from which he quoted only lines 18–24 of the manuscript's table (1979, 100 [2016, 94] top half of table 1), which are the entries for years 44–50 of Diocletian, and in which the number zero does not occur. If zero occurs in this table, whether expressed as a symbol (i.e. a numeral) or as "a Ge'ez word for 'none'," it would be expected to occur as the value for e in lines 13, 32, and 51, which should be the entries for years 39, 58, and 77 of Diocletian. I myself do not know what this manuscript has in those lines, but most likely it has the Ge'ez word for 'none', or possibly the numeral 30 (which as a value for e is functionally equivalent to 0). I must note in addition that the photograph of a manuscript that Neugebauer printed as his pl. 1 (which is referred to in n. 28 in the Wikipedia paragraph) does not show a page of the manuscript "Jerus Arm 3483." Rather, it shows fol. 4v of a different manuscript, namely "Tânâ 34," which is a typical example of an Ethiopian computus table, and there the Ge'ez word for 'none' occurs twice (in line 1 [after the line of column headings] cols. 4 and 9); cf. Neugebauer 1979, 31 (2016, 25). Even without my pointing out additional mistakes in this paragraph, it should be apparent that the paragraph requires at least significant editing by an Ethiopicist who is competent in the Ethiopian/Alexandrian Easter computus.

As to the general import that a thorough revision of this paragraph would bring, I must point out that while there is no doubt that the Ethiopian computus (i.e. "calculation of the Julian Easter") ultimately derives from the late antique Alexandrian computus, there is no compelling evidence to support Neugebauer's contention (1979, 33 [2016, 27]) that the data in the table in Jerus Arm 3483 "prove the existence in the early fourth century of the 532-year tables in Alexandria" or (1979, 99 [2016, 93]) that they justify "considering the Ethiopic 532-year tables [to be] a faithful replica of the Alexandrian Easter Tables." Probably all the extant Ethiopian computus manuscripts were copied at various times later than the sixteenth century, even if they contain tables with data for much earlier centuries. The tables that the Ethiopian computus manuscripts contain present an elaborate augmentation of information that goes far beyond what the corresponding Alexandrian tables are likely ever to have contained, at least until well into the medieval period. Probably, much more reliable evidence for the content and structure of a late antique Alexandrian computus table is the work of Dionysius Exiguus (525 CE), who based his own set of computus tables, written in Latin, on a set that had been sent to Europe from Alexandria about a century previously, presumably written in Greek. The fact that Dionysius used the Latin words nulla and nihil for 'zero' in his tables and accompanying comments, as well as the Ethiopian computists' use of an Ethiopic word for 'none' for the same purpose, suggests what is most likely in any case, namely that the Alexandrian computists used Greek μηδέν, or some other appropriate word, to express 'zero' where it was needed. Judging by the Latin and Ethiopic evidence for the Alexandrian computus, the Alexandrians found it necessary to use 'zero' only for the (lunar) epact of the first year of each 19-year lunar cycle. Elsewhere where they might have used 'zero,' namely for expressing one of the possible results of each of the two modulo operations 'mod 7' and 'mod 30,' they opted instead to use the respective modulus, i.e. 7 or 30, in the first case because the weekdays Sunday through Saturday were numbered 1 through 7, so that 'zero' had no meaning in this context except as being equivalent to 7; and in the second case because the age (progressive phasing) of the Moon as measured schematically in days ran from 1 (first visibility) through 30 (invisibility), so that here too 'zero' had no meaning, except as being equivalent to 30.

In sum, then, it is not immediately clear to me what significance (if any) the "calculation of the Julian Easter" has or might have in an article about 'zero.' The computists did not use a special symbol to notate 'zero,' and in fact it was not absolutely essential for them even to use 'zero' even by expressing it with a word (although one may ask why they did so in the one case of epact = new, invisible moon, which they could also have expressed as 30).

On the other hand, perhaps the entire section "Classical antiquity" should be reconceived along lines that might be suggested by addressing the following question: when, where, and how did people in the ancient Mediterranean world (from classical antiquity, through late antiquity, into the early medieval period) find themselves confronting the idea that 'nothing' might be a number, or might at least need to be treated as a number by being expressed in certain contexts by a word or even by a special symbol? I suppose that the most obvious groups of people to be treated when addressing this question would be mathematicians and astronomers, as well as philosophers and astrologers. And then, unless there are other, more significant groups to be treated here, maybe the computists should be added to this list. I wonder: were they the only people doing division (i.e. the modulo operation) with specific interest only in the remainder as such, i.e. not as the numerator of a fraction? Did non-computist mathematicians (Zeno aside, perhaps) never have to confront 'nothing' as the result, or partial result, of a calculation? If not, then here the computists might have something to contribute to the topic 'zero.' But even if so, their contribution would need to be presented quite differently than it is in the treatment they get in the current version of this section.

Food for thought, anyone? Emmstel (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I have looked at the criteria for B-class and C-class articles and I believe this article meets the B-class criteria. If you agree or disagree let me know! Drocj (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]