Is 0 considered a term? Do we stop calling it a term when we can't see it?

Is 0 considered a term in mathematics? I know it is considered a number and numbers are included in the definition of a term, but here's what happens if I consider 0 a term.

If I were to say 7 - 7 = 0 has 3 terms, then I should also be able to say that 7 - 7 = 0 + 0 has four terms, and in fact, despite not being able to see them, there could hypothetically be an infinite number of zero terms on either or both sides of the equation, meaning I could say that any equation, including 0 = 0, has an infinite number of terms in it.

>zero

Stop trying to indoctrinate me, cultist. I ain't visiting your spoopy skeltal board.

pls go

nigga I'm going to keep bumping this until I have an answer.

You're confusing an equation (which is just a sequence of written characters) with its meaning. '0=0' and '0=0+0' are two different equations even though they are logically equivalent.

The word "nothing" is the only word in the English language that does not refer to anything. If you give it attributes it becomes something else. Like 0, nothing that can be put into an mathematical equation. So that.

This.

OP, terms are a *syntactic* notion. They are not something that occurs in mathematical properties; they are something that occurs in mathematical *descriptions* of properties, in the form of equations and inequalities and the like.

0 is a number. Stop trying to inject your pseudo philosophical bullshit into it.

0 does not equal 0

because: 0 = 0
but then: 0+0 != 0

truly, a conundrum.

I'll accept this.
Just because you're retarded to understand something doesn't make it "philosophical bullshit" m8.

No you're the idiot here. A term is a number, 0 is a number. Who gives a shit if the equation 0=0 can have an infinite number of terms, so can 1+17=18.

The equation 18+2=20 could be multiplied by an infinite number of 1s, the multiplicative identity.

Your rumblings have no meaning and no significance but merely pedantry.

Were you really upset when someone disregarded a post of yours like this so you are trying to force it into a non-meme?

Somebody's assblasted. You should get some sleep.

nigga jus give the fucking answer bro

nice

Talking to yourself?
>pls respond

nice

In the context of elementary algebra, which is the relevant context for the OP's question, "term" is not usually understood as a formal piece of language, but rather as a piece of human-understandable jargon which may connote monomials embedded in a larger expression, or other "bits" in a more complex formula of whatever sort.

In elementary algebra, or when manipulating complex formulas of whatever kind, "term" is commonly used to denote "that bit right there". the monomial, the thing in between the plus-signs, the number, the proposition, whatever that /bit/ is in the bigger thing, especially in this monomial-in-the-polynomial context. And so since term is commonly used in this vague, jargon-sense, I would be happy to say that "0 is a term", /depending on the context/, OP. For example. If I write " 0 + yz + x = q", then I might briskly describe this equation as having three terms on its left hand side, or LHS. Now of course, as-written, the same could be re-written by getting rid of that leading zero. But suppose for whatever reason that I want to keep it in the discussion. I might say that "the first term is zero.", or similar. Or in the re-write (getting rid of same per the rules of algebra), I might instead say that in the equation "yz + x = q", that there is no one term equal to zero, for all values of the arguments.

If I had an equation of three definite integrals which all summed to zero, then I might describe the last integral on the left hand side of the equation as "the third term of the LHS". This is imprecise, and to be done on a jargon-basis, as the speakers and doers of the math are comfortable with same jargon.

Now, it may of course happen that in a given algebraic expression, a given term assumes, for given values of the variables, parameters etc, that some particular term evaluates to zero. But a central point of elementary algebra is that expressions may assume different values as functions of their variables.

This leads me to expand slightly on the same answer to the OP.

Shortest answer: "Yes, zero is (can be, and often is) a term. A term of an algebraic expression conveys numerical or algebraic information of some kind, even if that information can immediately prove to be disregarded, or discarded by a reasoning process, per the rules of algebra. For example, '0+1 = 1' conveys an equation with an LHS having two terms, say, and an RHS having one term. Here, we have an example of a situation where zero is regarded as a term."

Much better answer: "Zero is so commonly eliminated from consideration as a term in the course of doing elementary (and even intermediate, college-) algebra that depending on the context of a given algebraic expression, we may or may not need to consider whether zero is a term /in that context/. "Term" itself is a piece of jargon which pertains directly to the working process, where elementary algebra (and closely related calculus, etc) is concerned. It pertains to those bits which /are actually written down, at-the-moment/. When discussing x + y = z for example, I would not hold constantly in mind that there are an infinity of "zero-terms" on either side of the equation, for the simple fact that although they are feasible, they have yet not been written down. On the other hand, if I again write something like a + 0 + c = b, then such an expression has usually arisen in the course of an /argument/, a /narrative/, a /proof/, or a /problem/ of some kind. And so it is relevant to speak of the /middle term/ on the LHS, say, as being equal to zero /at a particular step/. And so we rewrite the thing as a + c = b (getting rid of something that is equal to zero, or goes to zero, is often spoken of as saying that the one thing /vanishes/), and then re-consider our new expression from this point forward.

This is the tactic all throughout elementary algebra. Speaking of zero "as a term" depends on /context/, and /process/.

In first order logic, the recursive definition for terms is as follows, all constants and all variables are terms and if t_1,...,t_n are terms then for all function symbols, f, then f(t_1,...,t_n) is a term. 0 is a constant (distinguished) in the standard model of the natural numbers, thus it is a term.

zero is an additive identity.
claiming it's not a term is same as doing the same thing regarding 1, identity matrices and so on.
it is a term, it stands for operation "do nothing" in addition

> can multiply 1 by anything an infinite number of times
> /x/

Some people say that the person spamming in multiple threads on Veeky Forums is actually a ghost. The legend goes that a native Veeky Forumsentist posted a thread asking about parallel universes. He was told to go to by a shitposter, he had never been to /x/ before so as any scientist would be he got curious. When he went to /x/ he saw something that would change his life forever. On the front page, first thread, was a picture of a spooky scary skeleton. Not prepared for this turn of events user immediately died from shock. They say that to this day he haunts Veeky Forums trying to enact his revenge on the person who stole his life from him, telling everyone in hopes of catching his murderer unaware. Who knows how many innocent anons have died because of this malevolent spirit. (You) could be next.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

and thus, a new legend is born.