yeah, go back go kindergarten guys. burn.

-1???

i dont know.
which is smaller -1 or 0?

Ermmm... -1 is smaller than 0.

Could also not zero be considered smaller than negative one although negative one is less than zero, it is farther from zero than zero is.

(April 20, 2010 at 8:55 am)theblindferrengi Wrote: Could also not zero be considered smaller than negative one although negative one is less than zero, it is farther from zero than zero is.

-1 is still smaller than zero. It sounds like you're talking about absolute values. The absolute value of -1 is greater than 0.

(April 20, 2010 at 8:55 am)theblindferrengi Wrote: Could also not zero be considered smaller than negative one although negative one is less than zero, it is farther from zero than zero is.

It's farther in a negative direction though, and is thus smaller. I agree with Zhalentine, when talking about absolute values (which we aren't here) then -1 is bigger than 0, but it isn't when considering a number line and it's actual value.

uhmm...

isn't it we can consider that in number line it is written from lowest to highest and before zero is -1
then we can justify that the number after zero is -1.

uhmm., sorry just guessing something wild out here

The number line is written from lowest to highest (-∞ to +∞). However, the number before zero is not -1. It's undefined since it's 0.0000000... but not equal to 0.

I'm not sure how you can rationalise a number being before zero also being after zero...it's a contradiction since no numbers on the number line are the same. Also, since 0 is neither negative nor positive (providing the tipping point as it were), then every number that comes before 0 will be negative, and every number that comes after will be positive.

(April 14, 2010 at 10:42 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't think it's the best way to represent it since it can't exist. The best way to represent it, honestly, may be through " an unidentifiable number". Because the point is that you can't have a one on the end of an infinite number of 0s. That isn't just an undefinable number, that's also an impossible number since it doesn't make mathematical sense - so I think to use it as an undefinable number would be silly :p

EvF

That's the reason it's not definable. If you could have a 1 at the end of an infinite number of zeros: then you would have a definable number already ^_<

Another way to represent this number is 1/∞. They are just two different ways of writing the same number. 1/∞ = 0.0r1 = infinitesimal = 'undefinable'. None of them make any mathematical sense. None of them can make any mathematical sense... because infinity is not a number. It's like this:



Not remotely calculable.

---

(April 20, 2010 at 8:55 am)theblindferrengi Wrote: Could also not zero be considered smaller than negative one although negative one is less than zero, it is farther from zero than zero is.

But then we get into the impossibilities of having less than nothing...

How could one have less than nothing? :S

---

(April 20, 2010 at 8:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: Ermmm... -1 is smaller than 0.

*uses metaphysical argument*

We can have less than nothing in mathematics. All negative numbers are "less than nothing".