Zero...category of its own?

[Velocity517]

In my English class, we had to color code the United States by lynchings during the 1882-1968 time period (300+ lynchings=blue, 299-200=green, etc. However, there is a category classified as "less than 100 lynchings or the number of blacks lynched is equal to or less than the number of whites lynched". There also is a separate category for the states with "zero lynchings". Some in my English class say that zero and the former category should be combined, based on the fact that zero is less than 100 and 0 is equal to zero. I am of the opinion, however, that since zero is the absence of a value and you cannot realistically measure non-values of a tangible thing, zero has its own category.

 

Thoughts, anyone?

[insane_alien]

0 should be a different catagory as the fact that NO lynchings whatsover took place in those places would seem to be important. i would use a separate catagory for that one.

[swansont]

You could restate the other category as "lynchings occurred, but fewer than a hundred or more white than black" (or something similar) to remove the ambiguity.

[Velocity517]

Yea, that would solve the problem but it wouldn't really solve the argument.

[Fremen2378]

You can't argue logic with mathematics... especially with those people who just love to argue

[Velocity517]

Well, and the two go sort of hand in hand, just that in this case they're two different aspects of the debate. Mathematically, 0 is a number with a value. Namely zero. but Logically, you cannot have 0 of an event or thing because simply, they do not exist.

[swansont]

Well, and the two go sort of hand in hand, just that in this case they're two different aspects of the debate. Mathematically, 0 is a number with a value. Namely zero. but Logically, you cannot have 0 of an event or thing because simply, they do not exist.

 

That's why the concept of zero was so revolutionary, way back when. But most of us know better now. Having zero of something can be meaningful, as in the current context.