Law of Measurement

[Boerseun]

I think your problem lies in the fact that you're using integers, and not real numbers.

Integers are the set of numbers {...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...}

There is nothing between them. The numbers are whole. Yes, 0 is indeed the space between -1 and 1, but in the integer set, there is nothing between -1 and 1 but 0. 0 is not a little negative or a little positive, it is exactly 0 and will not change the value of another integer when added to them.

When you want to describe the fractions that exist between -1 and 1, then you have to use the set of real numbers that include {-1, -0.99999999... (in infinite number of fractions between -1 and 0), 0, (an infinite amount of fractions between 0 and +1), 0.99999999..., 1}

Saying that the integer 0 is half positive and half negative is saying that the integer 4 ranges from 3.5 to 4.5 - which is impossible, because you're talking integers, not real numbers.

[Ben]

Ya know, I thought I had seen some weird stuff on this site, I am inclined to give the gold star here

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Notice that the zero on the ruler is round. This is critical because the value of Pi becomes needed to determine the precise amount of the zero that falls on each side of the marker.

Now what an earth has the concept of zero have to do with an arbitrary notational convention that writes it as 0? Say what, it has absolutely nothing to do with pi.

you will find how much of zero is positive, and how much is negative.

Pardon? So we now have "fractions" of zero, some of which are positive, and some negative? This is insanity

Since the zero is probably written small on your ruler, and is also oblong, you can take some liberties here. For instance, you might say that Pi = 3.33,

Hmm, I am beginning to think I am missing the "tongue in cheek"; I certainly hope so.

But maybe not

It is of course a fact that each number line will be different based upon how well crafted it is, so again, you need to make some allowances.

What gibberish is this? There is ONE AND ONLY ONE NUMBER LINE - it's called

a function of Pi/2/0.

I prayed to my beer fridge that this is a typo - it has absolutely no meaning whatever. But my prayers went unanswered, for we have this

Something along the lines of Sin(Pi/2/0)/Cos(Pi/2/0).

And now this pearl

It is important to remember that the actual dimensions of the zero of not consequential, so no variable is needed for them, just the ratio of the ratio of the proportion.

Dimension of zero, ratio of ratio of proportion? Variable what "them" exactly? What madness is this?

Say what, I cannot read any more of this garbage

[Donk]

Originally Posted by Ben

Ya know, I thought I had seen some weird stuff on this site, I am inclined to give the gold star here ... This is insanity ... Hmm, I am beginning to think I am missing the "tongue in cheek"; I certainly hope so.

To understand the full beauty of TheBigDog's reply, you need to read this thread in its entirety - and its predecessor PI

A long read, but not without its entertaining side. You will realise that TBD is only guilty, like so many canines, of playing with his food

[modest]

And another entitled Pi = 3.1415 or 3.33 ?.

Originally Posted by Ben

I am beginning to think I am missing the "tongue in cheek"

Sounds reasonable.

~modest

[Ben]

It seems that I have made a bit of a fool of myself here. I had totally misunderstood the point of TheBigDog's post. Why? Because I was too lazy to read the thread in its entirety, and the other related posts I was referenced. I have done so now, so I apologize to all for my offensive conduct.

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by Ben

It seems that I have made a bit of a fool of myself here. I had totally misunderstood the point of TheBigDog's post. Why? Because I was too lazy to read the thread in its entirety, and the other related posts I was referenced. I have done so now, so I apologize to all for my offensive conduct.

Hi! Ben

I beg to differ. You are not a fool and there is no need for you to apologize for anything. Just give it some time and you’ll see why.

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by modest

Take a number X and sum it with a positive number. X will get larger. Sum X with a negative and it will get smaller. Summing it with zero makes it neither larger nor smaller. Zero is known as a neutral element for addition. It is neither positive nor negative. It is neutral.

Deciding if a Number is a Whole Number, Integer, etc.

Integers


0 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Math Skills: Arithmetic With Intro ... - Google Books

~modest

Hi! modest

I’m still waiting to hear from Dr. Ronald Staszkow. When I do, I will return with the answers to your post. Please be patient.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Law of Measurement

[SIZE="2"]While doing scientific researching on the number line, I notice something very interesting. It occurred to me that on a number line I should be using half the marker instead of the whole marker that’s located above the number Zero (0). After all, isn’t the whole marker that is located above the number Zero (0) half negative and half positive?

no; it is not. the map is not the territory; the mark is not the number. you have presented yet another in a string of strange claims that use math terms but distinctly lack mathematical rigor or merit. this thread belongs in strange claims.

[Guadalupe]

Originally Posted by Turtle

no; it is not. the map is not the territory; the mark is not the number. you have presented yet another in a string of strange claims that use math terms but distinctly lack mathematical rigor or merit. this thread belongs in strange claims.

Hi! Turtle

I never claimed that a mark is a number. But, if you strongly feel that my thread belongs in strange claims. I’ll understand.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Guadalupe

Hi! Turtle

I never claimed that a mark is a number. ...

oh but you did. that you deny it or simply don't see it goes to no rigor & no merit. yes, i strongly feel this belongs in strange claims.