i don’t know where to stand at this point, because i always position zero as a representation of nothing. when in fact, if something is nothing, it should not exist in the first place.
first i was trying to think of zero as a number that stands for nothing. as a math student, in math we learnt that zero is both essential and, paradoxically, baffling. it’s a number used to count the absence of things, in fact, i consider it a placeholder, and a marker of limits, but somehow i got stuck on saturday about what it really does mean?
my problem now is how can “nothing” be something at all? if zero represents emptiness, why is it even treated as a real number? starting here, i kept organizing answers to every question i asked about zero. it was confusing at first because zero seems to contradict itself at every turn…but i will explain what i found too.
i read somewhere that originally, zero came about as a way to signify “nothing”. it was like an absence that ancient civilizations had no clear symbol for. yet math needed a way to tell numbers apart by scale, to make sure 205 wasn’t confused with 25, for example. so, zero became a placeholder: a small circle that held the space in our base-10 system.
the problem is, the first twist of it was that this symbol that “stands for nothing” actually holds a position of significance. it’s literally the root of our number system, but it carries no quantity itself. it’s here, but it’s not “really” here. fcukkKKKK!
okay, i thought that if zero is on the number line, a dividing line, at that how the hell is it not a value?
then, i learnt that when we place zero on the number line, it even becomes stranger. in the sense that, zero lies in between positives and negatives, yet it is not even part of either (like pick a struggle md’fka). it’s not positive, it’s not negative; it’s just… there.
we can say that zero marks the boundary but isn’t itself a value in the typical sense. it’s like a doorway—important because it separates two worlds but empty of its own real content. if zero’s only role is to divide, does it even really exist then? so, in a way, they expected me to think that answered my question about zero not able to divide shit? like i should just sit and agree that it’s a boundary that gives numbers their place, yet it’s empty of quantity?! ok.
so when i try to solve normal math, zero is supposed to be passive (even though it is clearly powerful enough to multiple any number and make it zero too)
we all can agree tha zero behaves in ways that other numbers don’t. like add zero to any number, and nothing changes like: $$ x+0=x $$ but when we even try to multiply the same number by zero, it becomes marvel’ thanos on everything, wtf: $$ a×0=0 $$
you see that zero has refused to pick a fucking struggle? zero seems to have two identities both as an additive “neutral” because it’s completely passive, invisible. but also as a multiplier, once it becomes absolute, absorbing all other numbers into nothingness. thanos got nothing on zero bludddd!
well, it seems like zero contradicts itself much more than a cheating girlfriend. so, it’s either it has no effect, or it removes all effect. zero is just anyhow, it is both something and nothing, both essential and empty.
i swear, i am not crazy!
as much as it was starting to make sense, when i solve calculus, that shii just complicates zero even more. like for instance, zero often represents a limit or an idea of something we approach but never actually reach. like when solving limits, zero becomes an abstract destination, like a place where we’re “almost” getting to be never do. let me show you:
$$ \lim_{x \to 0} f(x) $$
all this just does right now in this framework is that zero exists as something we endlessly approach but cannot touch. it feels like an asymptote on a graph. bruhh! it feels like my junior school crush that i never got to make out with.
i don’t know if i should keep writing but zero is a kind of impossible boundary that holds a place without occupying space. i think it is as real as a concept, but unreal as a value we can actually arrive at. so, in a way, i think zero serves as a mathematical horizon that is ever-present, yet unreachable. i mean like God, maybe?
or should i try to talk about how zero is used in physics?? maybe it would make much sense that way!
okay, we must admit that zero in physics is the theoretical extreme we can’t even reach. in physics, i learnt that zero is an absolute limit. we can say it is like fucking absolute zero they consider it as the point where particles would theoretically have no motion or energy.
inside all these things i read about zero in physics, they still tells us that this state is unattainable due to quantum effects; wtf?! i know particles always retain some energy and motion, no matter how close they get to zero, but can zero be any more demonic? like this literally makes zero a fucking idealized concept, something physics can describe but not actually measure or realize.
yet they say physics is about reality, how come zero is real in theory but forever beyond reach in practice—a mathematical ghost, haunting the edges of possibility.
fuck this mehn! i know i would have to find a finite answer soon!