## The parity value of 0

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Alan Masterman
Posts: 82
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

### The parity value of 0

Why do some mathematicians feel a pathological need to prove that 0 is an even number? Nothing of real importance in mathematics depends upon it. The very few contexts which treat 0 as even could be equally well served by a contextual definition, without the need to prove evenness in any absolute or universal sense.

There is a popular website which summarises in one article all of the "proofs" that 0 is even. They are generally specious, and should not be cited; some are so brazenly fallacious, it's difficult to believe they are offered in good faith. The website in question - you may guess which one - is NOT generally regarded as a reference of academic standard.

A proof that 0 has NO parity value, on the other hand, would serve at least one useful purpose: it would dispel the dense intellectual fog which surrounds this question!

If you feel disposed to dignify my own intellectual fogginess with a response, please first reflect:

(1) Parity value is a property of the natural numbers.
(2) The natural numbers are logically primitive.
(3) Therefore, whatever process determines parity value, operates at the logically primitive level.
(4) (HINT! Bone up on the axioms...)
JackDaydream
Posts: 763
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

### Re: The parity value of 0

@Alan Masterman

I don't consider myself as a mathematician, so I am approaching your question from a purely reflective angle. 0 is about nothing. So, it a basic position of absence, so to see it as even would be about seeing nothing as even. Within binary logic, ita is about the negatives and positives, like the yin and the yang.

I hope that you get some mathematical people engaged in your thread. I just gave you my basic thoughts, with a view to getting the thread going and hoping that other people will contribute...
GE Morton
Posts: 2809
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

### Re: The parity value of 0

Alan Masterman wrote: January 13th, 2022, 12:14 pm Why do some mathematicians feel a pathological need to prove that 0 is an even number? Nothing of real importance in mathematics depends upon it. The very few contexts which treat 0 as even could be equally well served by a contextual definition, without the need to prove evenness in any absolute or universal sense.

There is a popular website which summarises in one article all of the "proofs" that 0 is even. They are generally specious, and should not be cited; some are so brazenly fallacious, it's difficult to believe they are offered in good faith. The website in question - you may guess which one - is NOT generally regarded as a reference of academic standard.

A proof that 0 has NO parity value, on the other hand, would serve at least one useful purpose: it would dispel the dense intellectual fog which surrounds this question!
No proof that 0 is even is necessary; it is even by definition: an even number is an integer which may be divided by 2 with no remainder. Since 0 satisfies that definition it is even.

Nor is any proof possible that 0 has no parity. Parity is the property of being even or odd. Since 0 is even, it has a parity value (again) by definition.
Alan Masterman
Posts: 82
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

### Re: The parity value of 0

"No proof that 0 is even is necessary; it is even by definition: an even number is an integer which may be divided by 2 with no remainder. Since 0 satisfies that definition it is even."

"Nor is any proof possible that 0 has no parity. Parity is the property of being even or odd. Since 0 is even, it has a parity value (again) by definition"

GE, in mathematics, a definition is not something you "prove"; it is merely a statement to clarify the meaning of a technical term. You then go on in the same sentence to supply a highly questionable proof of something which you have just asserted is a definition.

Remember that we are dealing with a primitive property which, I have argued, must be discussed at the axiomatic or "primitive" level. At this level, the function 0/2=0 is unintelligible; there is no number in the natural number line which is equal to half of 0, and the axioms forbid the same number to be equal to both itself and half of itself.
Alan Masterman
Posts: 82
Joined: March 27th, 2011, 8:03 am

### Re: The parity value of 0

Jack, I acknowledge your reply, by saying that I think you have accurately perceived the philosophical heart of the problem in recognising that 0 represents "nothing". I don't think that everybody in the mathematical forum understands exactly what "nothing" means. But it occurs to me now that my original post was not properly thought through; I think I should restart the thread from a more fundamental level.
GE Morton
Posts: 2809
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

### Re: The parity value of 0

Alan Masterman wrote: January 16th, 2022, 6:55 am
GE, in mathematics, a definition is not something you "prove"; it is merely a statement to clarify the meaning of a technical term. You then go on in the same sentence to supply a highly questionable proof of something which you have just asserted is a definition.
You just contradicted yourself. If a definition is "not something you prove" (which it is not), then there is no need to "supply a highly questionable proof of something which you have just asserted is a definition."
Remember that we are dealing with a primitive property which, I have argued, must be discussed at the axiomatic or "primitive" level.
Definitions are the most primitive level. They are stipulated and assumed a priori.
At this level, the function 0/2=0 is unintelligible; there is no number in the natural number line which is equal to half of 0 . . .
Yes, there is, namely, 0.
and the axioms forbid the same number to be equal to both itself and half of itself.
Only for numbers >0. By definition.
ernestm
Posts: 17
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

### Re: The parity value of 0

I'd have to say zero is in interesting quantity.

Mathematics conventionally regards zero as not having a sign. In fact in computers, due to the nature of their binary computation, then can reach a mathematical result of -0. Thus if one holds maths is a priori true, then one also has to admit that there is an alternate form of mathematics, 'practical' rather than 'dieal,' which has different rules.

### Upcoming Philosphy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

### Previous Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021