# Law of Measurement

36 replies to this topic

Questioning

• Members
• 241 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 03:42 PM

Law of Measurement

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?

When adding and subtracting integers on the positive side of a number line using the whole marker located above the number Zero (0), we’re also including the negative half-side of the marker as well.

When adding and subtracting integers on the negative side of a number line using the whole marker located above the number Zero (0), we’re also including the positive half-side of the marker as well.

Realizing this, I discovered that on a number line, the integer or the number Zero (0) itself, is neither negative nor positive but, in fact, is half negative and half positive. This explains why the marker that is located above the integer or the number Zero (0) to be half negative and half positive as well.

On a number line, the integer or the number Zero (0), is the only integer or whole number that is half negative and half positive as well as the marker located above it.

This allowed me to see the importance in taking a correct measurement by utilizing this method of using half of the marker, instead of the whole marker, that is located above any whole number on the negative side as well as on the positive side on a number line.

This method of taking correct measurements applies to any and all types of measurements like when using a Number Line, the Standard English Ruler, Imperial System, Metric System, Units, etc. The method of taking a correct measurement also applies when measuring time.

Based on the importance of my new discovery, I decided to make this method of correct measurement into a new law called, “Law of Measurement”.

Questioning

• Members
• 241 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 08:28 PM

Hi!

It is said, “A picture is worth a thousand words”. I don’t have any pictures to show but, I do have illustrations. Perhaps the illustrations may help better understand my new discover.

You are cordially invited to visit and review for yourself on YouTube the video I posted, with illustrations, under the title Law of Measurement. Law of Measurement

### #3 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 17 August 2009 - 11:39 PM

On a number line, the integer or the number Zero (0), is the only integer or whole number that is half negative and half positive as well as the marker located above it.

It's not correct to say that zero is half-negative and half-positive because it is neither. It is neutral.

I'm still confused as to the point you are making. Can you elaborate?

### #4 jedaisoul

jedaisoul

Understanding

• Members
• 493 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 09:59 AM

On a number line, the integer or the number Zero (0), is the only integer or whole number that is half negative and half positive as well as the marker located above it.

I'm no mathematician, but I suspect that the "marker" above the number line is merely a graphic representation that is intended to assist with the comprehension of basic numbers. As such it has no actual significance in mathematics.

However, I'm not sure that freeztar is correct to claim that zero is neither positive nor negative. I think that there is such a thing as -0 as well as +0. They arise when rounding small numbers. E.g -0.0001 rounds to -0, +0.0001 round to +0. But Minus zero and plus zero are the same value as plain zero.

That's only a layman's opinion, but it makes sense to me...

### #5 Turtle

Turtle

Member

• Members
• 15452 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 11:05 AM

Law of Measurement

Based on the importance of my new discovery, I decided to make this method of correct measurement into a new law called, “Law of Measurement”.[/SIZE]

Peano axioms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematical logic, the Peano axioms, also known as the Dedekind–Peano axioms or the Peano postulates, are a set of axioms for the natural numbers presented by the 19th century Italian mathematician Giuseppe Peano. These axioms have been used nearly unchanged in a number of metamathematical investigations, including research into fundamental questions of consistency and completeness of number theory. ...

### #6 freeztar

freeztar

Pondering

• Members
• 8445 posts

Posted 18 August 2009 - 04:41 PM

However, I'm not sure that freeztar is correct to claim that zero is neither positive nor negative. I think that there is such a thing as -0 as well as +0. They arise when rounding small numbers. E.g -0.0001 rounds to -0, +0.0001 round to +0. But Minus zero and plus zero are the same value as plain zero.

That's only a layman's opinion, but it makes sense to me...

Rounding is exactly that. Yes, you can use excel to limit decimals to 2 and then you can have absurdities like 0.00 and -0.00. These are not *real* though. They are approximations dictated by the programming.

Zero is neutral, naturally.
What does it mean to think of "positive zero" or "negative zero"? It does disservice to the concept, imho.

But, this is a bit off-topic, I think...

### #7 sanctus

sanctus

Resident Diabolist

• 4225 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 08:09 AM

jeadi, you may have seen this signs in limits there you write it if you take the limit to zero from the right (+) or from the left (-)...

Questioning

• Members
• 241 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 03:21 PM

It's not correct to say that zero is half-negative and half-positive because it is neither. It is neutral.

I'm still confused as to the point you are making. Can you elaborate?

Hi! freeztar

Sorry for not respond sooner but, I was researching as to why you would believe that the integer or whole number Zero (0) to be neutral.

I took it upon myself to ask the question: “Who stated that on a number line the integer or whole number Zero (0) to be neutral and why?”
While I was waiting word from the Library of Congress, I did, however, receive word from University of Texas the Dept. of Mathematics.

This is what they said, “The idea of it as a “neutral number” does not appear to be an official mathematical concept.”

### #9 TheBigDog

TheBigDog

Doing the Impossible

• Members
• 4095 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 04:16 PM

Howdy Guadelupe. It has been a long time since I saw you postulating about math. I think I can clarify this for you.

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. I think if you can determine the precise value of Pi, then cut that in half, you will find how much of zero is positive, and how much is negative. 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, then cut that in half and divide by zero to find how much lies on either side of the divider. I think if you write to the Math department at Texas Tech you will find agreement with this in general principle. 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. The precise answer will most certainly end up being represented as a function of Pi/2/0. Something along the lines of Sin(Pi/2/0)/Cos(Pi/2/0). 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.

Another way of looking at this would be to recognize that the line through zero passes between the center two atoms of the line. It appears large so that a person can see it, but if you zoom in a billion times it gets no larger, it simply represents the border between the center two atoms and no matter actually exists where the line runs at maximum zoom. As no matter exists there it is unmeasurable. It has no halves, it has matter on either side, one side on the positive side of the number line, the other side on the negative side of the number line, but the line itself exists between the dividing plane between them with nothing to measure as it has no dimension as it has no matter at maximum zoom.

Now you may be saying to yourself, "Guadalupe, I know this guy is full of **** because when I magnify the line it gets bigger." This is an optical illusion caused by the fact that you are traveling near to light speed. If you were to decelerate to the point of non motion relative to all other points in the universe then the line at zero would simply disappear. Einstein was the first to postulate this, so you are in good company. Of course this does not jibe with quantum observations, but there is no such thing as zero in the quantum world, so that makes sense.

I hope this helps to clarify the phenomena of the zero on the number line.

Bill

### #10 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 19 August 2009 - 04:26 PM

I took it upon myself to ask the question: “Who stated that on a number line the integer or whole number Zero (0) to be neutral and why?”
While I was waiting word from the Library of Congress, I did, however, receive word from University of Texas the Dept. of Mathematics.

This is what they said, “The idea of it as a “neutral number” does not appear to be an official mathematical concept.”

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.

The numbers to the right of zero are called the positive real numbers;
the numbers to the left of zero are the negative real numbers.
The number zero is not positive (since it doesn't lie to the right of zero), and not negative (since it doesn't lie to the left of zero).
Zero is the only real number with this "neutral" status; every other real number is either positive or negative.

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

Definitions...

• The integer zero is neutral. It is neither positive nor negative.

Integers

In mathematics − 0 = 0 = + 0, both −0 and +0 represent the exact same number, i.e., there is no “negative zero” distinct from zero.

0 (number) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number zero separates the positive numbers from the negative numbers. It is neither positive or negative. It is the only neutral number in our number system.

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

~modest

### #11 Boerseun

Boerseun

Phantom Cow of Justice

• Members
• 6062 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:28 AM

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.

### #12 Ben

Ben

Questioning

• Members
• 211 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 11:58 AM

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

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 $\mathbb{R}^1$

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

### #13 Donk

Donk

Understanding

• Members
• 338 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:32 PM

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
• TheBigDog likes this

### #14 modest

modest

Creating

• Members
• 4959 posts

Posted 20 August 2009 - 01:19 PM

And another entitled Pi = 3.1415 or 3.33 ?.

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

Sounds reasonable.

~modest

### #15 Ben

Ben

Questioning

• Members
• 211 posts

Posted 23 August 2009 - 02:13 PM

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.
• sanctus likes this

Questioning

• Members
• 241 posts

Posted 19 September 2009 - 06:31 PM

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.

Questioning

• Members
• 241 posts

Posted 19 September 2009 - 06:33 PM

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.

~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.