Proof That Zero Does Not Exist

In this video I will show that zero does not exist. This video actually shows a really key concept that comes up in calculus/advanced calculus. Please leave any comments in the comment section below.

If you enjoyed this video please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing.

There are several ways that you can help support my channel:)

************Udemy Courses(Please Use These Links If You Sign Up!)*************
Abstract Algebra Course

Advanced Calculus Course

Calculus 1 Course

Calculus 2 Course

Calculus 3 Course

Calculus Integration Insanity

Differential Equations Course

College Algebra Course

How to Write Proofs with Sets Course

How to Write Proofs with Functions Course

Statistics with StatCrunch Course

Math Graduate Programs, Applying, Advice, Motivation

Daily Devotionals for Motivation with The Math Sorcerer

Thank you:)

#math #proof #zero

[amydebuitleir]

I enjoy this sort of "proof" and seeing how quickly I can spot the flaw. It's like watching a magician who secretly wants you to figure out the trick.

[DimaEgorovRU]

“0/zero” is the place holder of absence, it both does and doesn’t exist, it’s value is none existent but it exists as a formula for negative or no tangible numbering where one and up is a position of positive outcomes or value. It being the opposite negative and under as negatives don’t exceed zero value without becoming positive in either direction zero is a baseline placeholder as well.

Zero is both real and false.
It’s a nucleus of mathematics a true stand alone icon that is both a number and symbol.

[sirbilliam]

I would like to note that I write this having it being stopped at 1:58 and have not read a single comment.

A common flaw I see in these "proofs" is the division by zero. 1/0 doesn't exist, so therefore subtracting that by itself would grant something that doesn't exist. Therefore "proving" in that sense that the limit doesn't exist, but anything could have been chosen like x - x where the limit would be 0. Cherry picking 1/x - 1/x is the downfall of this. x/1 - x/1 would have been better because x could equal 0 and the false proof would fall flat.

[coffeeconfessor]

This was a fun brain exercise this morning to have with my coffee. I knew where the flaw was right away, but knowing where a flaw exists in a proof is so much different than knowing *why* it is a flaw. But it's the first step to figuring that latter part out. I find a lot of times I can see the flaw in my logic, but I have to take a mental break for a bit to figure out *why* there is a flaw in my logic. It's sort of like seeing that something *is* but the steps from point A to point B aren't clear.

[muhittincankorkut]

I think you cant take lim(1/x-1/x) apart as different limites. This is forbidden since lim 1/x does not have a limit

[neeklahs]

0 does exist in a mathematical setting, and as human quantity concept, but in real-world it would have serious metaphysical implications that I don't know how to explain.
Like 1 🍎 no matter what you do, that 1 or apple never gonna become a 0 outside of human quantity concept, the matter and/or energy It will always exist no matter what you do, never gonna became a 0.

[abdousekhi]

Believe me zero exist in my exam paper😅

[WestExplainsBest]

Cool video idea. I like teaching methods like this because it really engages and taps into students' perceived misunderstandings.

[colamity_]

fun, a touch on the easy side imo but its always good to get refreshed on the fundamentals.

[Flaystray]

It should be noted how much you pointing out the mistake(s) should be appreciated. A lot of well meaning channels on here just post bad proofs and never point out the errors. This is a huge contributor for misinformation and should be reprimanded wherever it is seen, which on YouTube is far too frequently, so thank you for standing out

[ChristAliveForevermore]

Peano's 5 Axioms for the construction of the Natural Numbers:
1. Zero is a natural number.
2. Every natural number has a successor in the natural numbers.
3. Zero is not the successor of any natural number.
4. If the successor of two natural numbers is the same, then the two original numbers are the same.
5. If a set contains zero and the successor of every number is in the set, then the set contains the natural numbers.

We can see clearly that before *anything* can be known about numbers in any *rigorous* sense, we *must assume* the existence of 0. In reality, the "Natural Numbers" are 1, 2, 3, ... but in order to *rigorously construct* a workable number system, such as the Whole Numbers (which is *actually* what Peano's Axioms construct), i.e., the necessary precursor to the Integers, one *must assume the existence of 0.*

There is no possible means of performing mathematics with a logically-founded system of counting as the fundamental basis from which to work without assuming the existence of 0 first and foremost. Sure, we can simply count from 1 upwards (of course assuming the infinitude of the counting numbers and, perhaps, the ability to freely choose a number from the already-counted numbers, but how does that give us the addition or multiplication of numbers?), but without the number 0 we cannot do much more than count, which humans have been doing for dozens of thousands of years.

This is a very longform, round-about way of saying to any who wish to read this far that we cannot prove the existence of 0. It simply is. In a sense, from nothing comes everything.


As a side, I *love* thinking about the fundamental assumptions of mathematics, so I couldn't help myself but to write this long blathering post. Forgive me Math Sorceror lol

[maxmontauk]

Thank you Math Sorcerer! This was really excellent - more of these types of videos please!

[fushisaruhiko]

This intrigued me very much as someone who studies computer science since binary is just 1s and 0s and relies heavily on math. Thanks for the video :D!!

[aweebthatlovesmath]

a=e^ln(a)
0=e^ln(0) ln(0) is undefined so does e^ln(0) ⇒ 0 does not exist.
This proof and mine is wrong because we are turning it to a undefined thing but if you do something "valid" and get "invalid" then yes but here no.

[anarchistz]

Eventhough it's not the best, this can serve as a proof by contradiction that the inverse of the statement (if L(f) and L(g) exists then L(f±g) exits) does not hold

[remram_q]

Ah yea I heard a debate about how 0 shouldn't be or should be a part of math
And they brought up what Parmendies said
I feel like 0 exists to 1: like you said to represent the absence of something, and 2: to represent extremely large or tiny numbers
Like 10^25 or 10^-25 is different than 1^25 and 1^-25So technically it exists to represent something that does not and something that does, but the number itself existsYea exactly
0 is pretty important in a lot of different subjects I've seen in math especially pre-calculus like what a variable can be defined asand has been extremely important in kinematics as it sometimes gives you final and initial velocityGiving you a more complete equation to figure out distance or time etcYea now that I think bout it, without 0 some physics equations would be impossible in a lot more scenarios as you'd be missing two variablesLike if some dude threw a rock straight up with an initial velocity of like... I unno 4m/s in the air and you want to find its high altitude
You can use Vf^2 = Vi^2 + 2 · a · d
Without zero, you'd lack both distance and final velocityBut with 0, you only lack distance and you can do basic algebra to figure it outSince at its peek height it will stop moving thanks to gravity and start falling back to Earth
So it would be
0^2 = 4^2 + 2 · -9.8(gravity) · d

[NintendoFan]

Proof that zero exists:

A number can always exist, but for it to appear as an object, there must be a count of objects equal to that number. For example: there is one rock. There can’t be one nothing. The illusion is what if one object is shaped like a 1, that’s what confuses people.

And since 0 is nothing, there cannot appear in real life, if there’s an object shaped like a zero, there will be one of that object.

Therefore 0, like all positive numbers, exist. The only difference is that 0 cannot appear on real life which is what makes the confusion.

Negative numbers on the other hand, is a mess. Just like 0, they cannot appear in real life, so how do you tell the difference? Also you need to use a subtraction sign to even use a negative number. Negatives are a conspiracy and my proof that zero exists is proof that negatives don’t.

[sharifuzzamanshafi]

I think the fundamental problem is in the first line, lim x tends to 0 of function 0 doesn't make sense, yeah about third line, your argument is solid, but my knowledge says it's more messed up in the very right hand side where you started the solution

[anuragthakur]

I'm really happy that i got it!! Your explanation was really intuitive

[riddler]

My bank balance: *Are u sure about that?*