Talk:−0 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-14. The result of the discussion was Keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.


This template adds articles to Category:Previously AFD'd articles.

Delete, no sources, nothing.

Contents

[edit] Move?

Given that the current AFD discussion appears to be headed toward a "keep" result, should this page be moved somewhere after it is over? Maybe Negative zero? NatusRoma 20:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

How about −0? (That's minus zero rather than "hyphen zero".) —BenFrantzDale 05:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I second −0 (minus zero) like BenFrantzDale suggested. —Liyster 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to −0 (number), for consistency with −1 (number) and −40 (number). sjorford (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Properties and handling

Shouldn't we specify that x/0 is undefined? It's lim(x/n,n,0) = infinity, not x/0 = infinity.

But in IEEE 754, it isn't undefined! Melchoir 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Complex Number

In IEE floating point, -0 have special meaning in complex number.

  Sqrt( -1 + 0i ) = 0 + i
  Sqrt( -1 - 0i ) = 0 - i

-- 219.78.124.173 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Programming languages

The article is a bit unusually inaccurate on this issue. The C family is mentioned and so is Java, but the function that "should" be used instead seems to be a C/C++ function, apparently without a Java equivalent (as none is mentioned). I don't recall Java having the problem, though that doesn't have to mean it doesn't exist. It seems odd to advise programmers in general to use a specific function that seems to be C-specific.

If the standard is language independent, refering to the name of the function doesn't make much sense unless most libraries have it (the equivalent functions for other languages should be named too), otherwise the programmer would be advised to implement it, rather than use it (because it wouldn't be a function, but merely a language independent description of a function). — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Zero

I took the negative zero section from the zero article and put it under Zero and Negative Zero. It seems like it fits but I'm no expert. Does it belong there? --24.8.206.37

Frankly, I feel it's redundant. There's nothing in that section not already covered in the article. By the way, when you copy text from one article to another, you should make a notation in the edit summary (this has to do with the attribution requirements of the GFDL; if you're not careful about those you could be seen as infringing on the copyright of the original authors). --Trovatore 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. I don't edit a lot. --24.8.206.37

Hey everyone, It seems like this article's information could be merged with zero and then this page could simply redirect there.--Cronholm144 21:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article Zero contains a section titled "Negative zero". It's one paragraph long, which is appropriate for a general article on zero. It contains a link to this article, which contains in-depth material that wouldn't belong in the general article. This article organization strategy is known as Wikipedia:Summary style. Melchoir 09:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this policy and I am capable of working within it. however negative zero is not important enough to have its own article, frankly it could serve to confuse people, sorry to disagree with you on every page that I have worked on, it wasn't intentional--Cronholm144 09:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as abstract topics, 0.999... confuses lots of people, and 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · has almost no individual importance. For that matter, 0.999... isn't all that important, and 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · is pretty confusing. Yet our articles on these two topics are Featured Articles. Should they not exist after all? Melchoir 09:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limit

I believe 0− is 'more correct' for a limit approaching zero from the negative direction: I haven't seen −0 used to mean that before in mathematics. — DIV (128.250.204.118 06:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] (+0) vs 0

The examples include: (+0) + -0 = 0 I assume that (+0) and 0 are the same thing here, but it would be good to explicitly say. Bobbyi (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)