-0 is a lesser number then 0

Hello darkness my old friend

Nothing is the same value as nothing

Yes, exactly

-0 doesn't progress or digress any further on a number line than just staying at 0. It's literally just the same value.

-0 = 0

Uh yes it does

is 0i more or less than 0 or -0

Well we're not dealing with the irrational here, we're dealing with 0.
Two irrational numbers can totally be different, but having no value just means you equal 0

...

1=0
I don't give a shit if any of you understand.

There are no elements "-0" and "+0" in the set of real numbers, so you can't use them unless you have invented another set of numbers.

>oh shit i lost the Apple i didn't have (-0)
>oh shit i found no Apple (+0)
>still hungry

>oh shit i lost an apple i did not have (-0)
>oh shit i found no Apple (+0)
>still hungry

Fucking phone double post
Sorry

Fucking phone double post
Sorry

Veeky Forums's attempts at winning a nobel prize

kek
this is a cringe thread with stupid question and stupid answers

Sure, buddy, next thing you will try to say .999... is the same number as 1.

it is

Anything multiplied by zero has an identical value to zero.

There is a negative 0, it just happens to be equal to the normal zero. For each real number a, we have a number −a such that a+(−a)=0. So for 0, we have 0+(−0)=0. However, 0 also has the property that 0+b=b for any b. So −0=0 be canceling the 0 on the left hand side.

math.stackexchange.com/questions/667577/does-negative-zero-exists

Sure and somehow I bet you also want me to believe that somehow equals -e^iπ.

it is

If 0 equals nothing then would that mean that -0 equals something?

yes, it equals to nothing

Do you know what -10 times zero equals... what about -1 times zero?

>I bet
there is no wagering at Veeky Forums, Grandpa

Math is all lies made up of symbols and variables.

-0 = 10,000
0 = 1 million
-10 = 10,000,000,000

Therefore:

0 x -0 = -10

...

- can be a qualifier, identifier or opertation

you didn't specify

#syntax error

And here I was thinking that -0 is simply the inverse value of 0. . . .

Seeing as 0 has no intrinsic value then the inverse shares that same property.

Which is nil.

>tldr

x*0=0
x*-0=0

-0=0

>What is absolute value

...

Yes it does

No, -0 are larger than 0. Everyone knows this. If you remove nothingness you add something. It is common sense really.

-0 mean you owe nothing and have nothing, +0 means you have nothing and owe nothing. Its the same thing

Absolute value of number is defined as a distance from zero. [math] \left| -0 \right| = 0 [/math] and [math] \left| 0 \right| = 0 [/math] both have distance 0 and therefor they have equal value. [math] \blacksquare [/math]

but the lack of nothing must be the existence of something

-0 is not a lack of nothing. -0 is a lack of anything

No, stop thinking in terms of 'owe'. It is not mathematical. 0 is neither positive nor negative. It is a concept of nothingness, as a digit it is a placeholder, as a number it is the additive identity. Subtraction is the operation of removing objects from a collection. If we remove nothingess itself from a collection you add something. Think of a empty bag, if we remove the nothingness itself from the bag, you have put something in the bag.

but then what's 0

checkmate atheists

so 1 + 0 is somehow fundamentally different from 1 - 0?

>the lack of nothing must be
This would supply nothing with attributes. Nothing does not have attributes. Reasoning from nothing, or anti-reasoning from nothing, are both invalid in the context of logic.

No, if you have something you cannot remove nothingness because there are nothing to remove. If you have something and add nothingness you are left with what you had in the beginning.

0 is the same thing as 0+0, -0 is the same thing as 0-0. Are these things different?

Prove it.

ayyyy lmao

0 - 0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0

>0 - 0 = 0
x-x=0
>0 + 0 = 0
0+0=2×0
2×0=0

That is not a proof, it is a statement that can be either true or false.

And since its true, the point is proved

As much as I want it to be true the dice told me it was false. Sadly.

Yes? Whats your point?

How large a bag do you need to hold - 2apples?

You dont need any space to hold -2 apples

WHY IS HE SO SMUG

...

I think it is sufficient with an non-existent bag.

10= 1+9

10-1=9

0=9

9/3,14=2,8

1/3.14= 0,31

2,8+0,31=3.184*3,14=9,99

0=9.99

> -0 + .5 = -0.5
> 0 + .5 = 0.5

/thread
h
r
e
a
d

Can't argue with that, even if you used both hands.

0 large

...

> using windows
> shitty resolution
> wolfram meme
> -0 magically turns into 0
back to the flames of hell, satan.

> -0 magically turns into 0
Because they are the same thing

Show me one way in which -0 is different or distinct from 0.

-0 have no symbolic meaning without syntactic context. The number n depends on the expression x - 0. 'Two multiplication' or 'three division' also lack symbolic meaning without syntactic context. When we write +2 or -2 we do not mean 'Two addition' or "Two subtraction' but where the numbers is located on the number line.

If 0 is the same +0, then x - 0 is not the same as x + 0. The expression -0,+0 is not defined without syntactic context. +0, -0 are not numbers, only 0 is.

What? + 0 and 0 are literally identical, just as +1 and 1 are the same thing, we just dont bother writing the + for positive numbers

I just don't get one thing. If there are -0 and 0, is there... --0??

- or + indicates which direction away from 0 a number lies on a number line so this thread is retarded

>you decide to try Veeky Forums because you like science and you wanna know what the great minds of Veeky Forums are discussing
>a guy is asking about -0

dude, are y'all 7 or something?

>nobel prize
>mathematics

>great minds
>Veeky Forums
pick one and only one famiglioni

Yes, its identical to positive 0 which is identical to 0

Look at:
[eqn]\lim_{x\to y-0}f(x)[/eqn]versus [eqn]\lim_{x\to y+0}f(x)[/eqn]

They imply 2 completely different things.
This is especially important if you consider that f may not be defined to the left or right y.

>changing an existing fact
>trying to look smart by asking a rebelling question
>being a 12 year old fedora tier thread

Why do you guys even fucking do this shit? It's a waste of time, now go study for your finals. There are more important shit in the world.

This notation is both retarded and deliberately obfuscatory. It's counterproductive to the whole purpose of notation, which is to be precise with clarity.

Isn't it
[eqn]
\lim_{x \to 0-} f(x) \\
\lim_{x \to 0+} f(x)
[/eqn]

negative zero is a meaningless statement. It has no value. You're not applying a negative to anything. It's not impossible, it's just meaningless.

-1 * 0 = 0. Perfectly well defined.

Definition: (-a) is the additive inverse of a.
Axiom: x+0=0+x=x
Axiom: y+(-y)=(-y)+y=0
0=0+(-0)=(-0)
Therefore, 0=(-0), the additive inverse of 0 is 0.

-0 is higher number than 0

0 - 5 = -5

-0 - 5 = 5

That would imply that the limit is approaching zero and not y.

If [math] - 0 = 0 [/math], then [math] \frac{1}{-0} = \frac{1}{0} [/math], whence [math] - \infty = \infty [/math].

> treating infinity like a number.

Ok, let's play your game.

so, infinity = 1/0 = 1/(1-1) = -1/(-1+1) = -1/0 = - infinity.

Wow, you just might have completed changed Mathematics, user. Congrats!

Can we move past high school calculus please?

I was satirizing as much as anyone else.

Then again, on a board where some people adamantly refuse to believe that [math] .999... = 1 [/math], Poe's law is relevant.

> Hello, bank employee. I wanna withdraw all my money.

> Ok. You have $1,000 in your account.

>So, now that you'll give me it all, I'll have in my account: 1,000 - 1,000 = 0.

>No, I'll have less than that.

>How?

> It's simple. 1,000-1,000 = -1 * (-1,000-1,000) = -0

>Oh yeah, you're completely true! I'm sorry. I don't wanna owe anything to the bank. How much should I deposit in order to have 0 in my account?

>hmm -0+x=0 => x=0;

>Ok, here, you can have $0.

> Nice! Now You have exactly $0 in your account. Thank you, have a nice day!

Then people ask why no one takes mathematicians seriously. You're all so far up your asses that you forget fucking kindergarten mathematics.

-0 - 5 = 5
(-1)(0) + (-1)(5) = 5
(-1)(0 + 5) = 5
(-1)(5) = 5
-5 = 5

Yeah, no.

> -0-5=5

your first statement is incorrect.

-0-5=-5.