Are white and black considered colors?

[Stefan]

How so? At most, if it's a protected page, you submit a request for it.

Yes, you can vandalize, but it'll likely get fixed quickly. Plus wikipedia is generally *not* written by moronic kids with no idea what they're doing. Don't make it sound like it is (90% of my "********" were for that alone). And the article doesn't just state that "oh well, black's a color". It provides a proper justification for it as well. And apparently the wikipedia community agrees.

the point is that it is a definition from a person, not an actual resource (such as a dictionary).

Oh you mean the dictionary definition was from a robot or god or whatever, not a person?

I don't see how this matters? Colors are referred to in adjective forms all the time.

Buuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiit. No they're not. They're often *used* in adjective form, but rarely referred to like that. You'd have to do that like "the red color" or "the color that is red" instead of "red". Do you do that? No you don't. And take the title of this thread, for example. It's a noun there. Just like in almost all uses inside the thread.

The wikipedia article itself states that "in practice it can be considered a color" which suggests it is not actually a color (or it wouldn't be only in practice).

Yeah sure, ignore the rest of the sentence.

"Although black is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, color, in practice it can be considered a color"

First of all, the part that you left out says *sometimes*. Why did you hide that, and even added "only in practice"? Secondly, it's still referred to as a color, just a special kind. The way I read that is that while it's sometimes described as a special color, it's usually a regular one. That said, I don't really like the wording there. Thirdly, white and gray are achromatic/hueless colors as well, so if you say that makes black a non-color, you must also say white and gray aren't colors. Do you?

And now I'll leave because I'm quite sure you're just trolling. You can't be serious with all that stuff.

 

[Dene]

Lolololololo Mr. Pochmann is on the case and people are getting owned.


BTW people the world is spelt with a "u" and black and white are clearly both colours so get over your academic "definition" mishmash crap and accept Dene's knowledge as perfect.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I was at MathsJam last weekend, and someone discussed how the British curriculum says that 0 is not even or odd, nor is it a number. Now there's something that has a real answer, and is actually a problem.

The answer to the thread title is an unambiguous "yes".
The questions now might be "By whom?" and "Are they correct?" but it's as useful as asking if another 6.77 should be considered a WR.

 

[MTGjumper]

I can't ever remember being taught that 0 wasn't a number, or that it wasn't even or odd.

 

[Lucas Garron]

I can't ever remember being taught that 0 wasn't a number, or that it wasn't even or odd.

I should probably have clarified that I don't know the extent, recent, and accuracy of the claim. But such rigid nonsense is an issue in teaching all around the world.

 

[Godmil]

It's not nonsense, Zero isn't a number, it's a concept (it wasn't 'invented' until a long time after the number system came about). Zero is useful in maths, but otherwise it's just a concept. (Same as infinity, that's something that is only useful in mathematics and hyperbole)

 

[Kirjava]

Zero isn't a number

Are you using a definition of the word number that most of us are unaware of?

 

[irontwig]

It's not nonsense, Zero isn't a number, it's a concept (it wasn't 'invented' until a long time after the number system came about). Zero is useful in maths, but otherwise it's just a concept.

How is that different from any other number?

 

[Godmil]

I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that it hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the middle ages. But if you think about it what real use does it have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with a zero (neither does 'odd or even' as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and Zero seems to fill that space between -1 and 1 nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having zero as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few computer scientists and statisticians here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for 'no number' rather than a 'number that is zero'.

<_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?

 

[Kirjava]

I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that it hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the middle ages. But if you think about it what real use does it have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with a zero (neither does 'odd or even' as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and Zero seems to fill that space between -1 and 1 nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having zero as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few computer scientists and statisticians here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for 'no number' rather than a 'number that is zero'

None of the things you mentioned dictate if or why zero is a number or not.

Could you define the word 'number' for us?

 

[Stefan]

<_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?

Nah... you're too cute and amusing.

 

[ben1996123]

imo, yes.

 

[Godmil]

Could you define the word 'number' for us?

I'm afraid I can't. If I tried I'd probably tie myself into a semantic mess.
I'm not going to beat a drum and say "everyone should reject the idea that Zero is a number" cause it would be meaningless. I generally think of Zero as a number myself (by the way I define numbers).
But what I will say is, if you read a little about the history of 'zero' it gives you pause for thought about it's general usage. Like I said before (if I quickly look this up) it wasn't until 1200AD+ that people in Europe thought of zero as being a number. Which seems pretty weird given we've all grown up with it think it's as obvious as 1 2 and 3.

 

[Kirjava]

What does the period it was created in have to do with anything?

 

[Godmil]

What does the period it was created in have to do with anything?

Yep fair enough, it is kind of arbitrary.
I'm just going to duck my head, point in one direction and go "Oh my gosh, look at that." Then run the opposite way.
If there's one think I know about this forum it's that nobody can survive an argument with Kirjava (or Stefan for that matter, but he's been mercifully restrained).

 

[Kirjava]

It was hardly an argument, you could've at least listed a valid reason why it isn't a number. (Reasons certainly exist)

 

[Stefan]

or Stefan for that matter, but he's been mercifully restrained

Nothing to do with mercy, there's just nothing to say. You're stating zero is not a number but don't give any real reason, so there's nothing to work with. Looks like you just don't like the developments of the past few centuries. Maybe you also shouldn't use a computer. People did fine without one until very recently.

 

[Godmil]

It was hardly an argument, you could've at least listed a valid reason why it isn't a number. (Reasons certainly exist)

Yeah I know, it's just I'm at work at the moment and I could see this requiring an awful lot of research before I could confidently come up with something that would probably only have a slim chance at best of persuading you.
Sorry to bow out of what could have been an interesting discussion, but I really am pretty busy.

EDIT:

Looks like you just don't like the developments of the past few centuries. Maybe you also shouldn't use a computer. People did fine without one until very recently.

Haha, yes I did come across like that.

If I were to get stuck into it (which I'm afraid I can't as I'm really getting behind now with work), I'd start to define numbers as a way of quantifying real objects... 1 apple, 2 apples, where zero would be the absence of apples rather than something real.... However, if I really wanted to define numbers, it's been a while, but I believe it's done in set theory, where zero is an empty set, then the numbers come from 1 = one empty set, 2 = two empty sets, which unfortunately (I think) gives the definition of Zero, but I'm afraid I'd really need to do a lot more research on that, it's been more than a decade since I studied maths, and all I know of set theory is what my friend taught me. So you see, I've really backed myself into a corner here.

 

[cmhardw]

I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that \( \pi \) hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the pyramids were built in Old Kingdom Egypt. But if you think about it what real use does \( \pi \) have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with \( \pi \) (neither does circle circumference or area as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and \( \pi \) seems to fill that space between 3 and 4 nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having \( \pi \) as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few engineers and architects here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for '3.1415...' rather than a 'ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter'.

<_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?

Fixed.

 

[Godmil]

Hahahahaha. Excellent Chris!