[brett siniard (OP)]

I had a Question? Is the number 0 the real number 1? This has been on my mind for a while, and I wanted to share with other people on a spiritual forum what it means. Have we been lied to by the government for some certain reason? If we look at the numerical system, the first number is 0. Has the dial been switched for some certain reason to make it look like the number 1 comes first in everything?
From this, I have came to realize certain beings use that to their advantage. Is every number after 0 (hence 1-infinity) working for the number 0? Since the dial has changed a notch, what does it mean? What are these beings using this for?
I’ve always thought, everything works for the number 0, and we can’t get out of a shape/consciousness existence because we perceive it wrong.
Any ideas, on this perception?

[Bored chemist]

If you are counting apples, do you start at zero?

[syhprum]

But if I am interested in a journey I must of course start at zero distance  from my start point

[alancalverd]

Historically, zero is quite a recent invention. There is no Roman numeral equivalent, for instance.

[evan_au]

Has the dial been switched for some certain reason to make it look like the number 1 comes first in everything?

This question has been bothering computer programmers for decades: Is the first element of an array referenced by index "1" or index "0"?

Apparently, modern programming languages tend to begin at zero.

But there is a real mixture, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_(array)#Array_dimensions 

But computer nerds tend to start at zero, especially if they have done low-level programming.

If you are counting apples, do you start at zero?

I have done this occasionally, with my grandkids. You just have to start with a different rhythm, as you transfer objects into a bowl.
Instead of starting with "one" as you put the first apple in the bowl, you start with "zero" as you reach for the first apple...

ok, so now you can put zero and zero together, and come up with one computer nerd.

[syhprum]

With the Strowlger dialling system if you dialled zero you sent ten pulses

[Colin2B]

Have we been lied to by the government for some certain reason?

I have came to realize certain beings use that to their advantage.

I’ve always thought, everything works for the number 0, and we can’t get out of a shape/consciousness existence because we perceive it wrong.

Any ideas, on this perception?

Yes, my idea on this perception is that it is not only weird, but false.

The government has never lied about zero.
What beings are you referring to?
Your view that everything works for 0 is seriously odd.

Your observations are at odds with reality. I have a number of dials and sliders on amplifiers and mixers that start at 0. This is quite common on electronic equipment where 0 equates to off.

Look around, start living in the real.

[Zer0]

Hello brett 😇

          Rather than placing doubts/suspicions on (0) I personally would target infinity which seems unreal/fake.

Along with all the other opinions/views/comments stated above the following link might help broaden your understanding on the subject (zero) 👍

" Informally, one may use the notation “−0” for a negative value that was rounded to zero. This notation may be useful when a negative sign is significant; for example, when tabulating Celsius temperatures, where a negative sign means below freezing. "

" In statistical mechanics, one sometimes uses negative temperatures to describe systems with population inversion, which can be considered to have a temperature greater than positive infinity, because the coefficient of energy in the population distribution function is −1/Temperature. In this context, a temperature of −0 is a (theoretical) temperature larger than any other negative temperature, corresponding to the (theoretical) maximum conceivable extent of population inversion, the opposite extreme to +0. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_zero

TC ✌

[evan_au]

Is every number after 0 (hence 1-infinity) working for the number 0? Since the dial has changed a notch, what does it mean?

The mathematician Cantor took in the big picture (and I mean really big, like infinity).

Cantor showed that if you move the dial a notch, and start from 0 instead of 1, it doesn't change how many numbers there are.

He showed this by counting the numbers. You create a link "→" between each non-negative integer (starting from 0) and each counting number (eg starting from 1).
You keep going until one or the other runs out.
0 → 1
1 → 2
2 → 3
3 → 4
....... (to infinity)

Spoiler alert: Neither runs out, so there are the same quantity of them.

So, in the big picture, it really doesn't matter if you start from 1 or 0!

Find out more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

[Bill S]

So, in the big picture, it really doesn't matter if you start from 1 or 0!

In fact, it makes no difference where you start, or in which direction you go.

They are all pseudo infinite,
"And they come out all the same."

With apologies to Malvina Reynolds.

[scherado]

This question has been bothering computer programmers for decades: Is the first element of an array referenced by index "1" or index "0"?

.
I was a computer programmer and it never bothered me once. My fellow students at college didn't seemed to be bothered about the index origin, which could be 2 or 3 or..., eh? AND my professors, not one of them, seemed to be bothered about the index origin--unless it was a question on a test. Further, computer programmers know that the number of entries (occupied or NOT) in an array or matrix is the same no matter the index origin. Eh?
.

I’ve always thought, everything works for the number 0, and we can’t get out of a shape/consciousness existence because we perceive it wrong.
Any ideas, on this perception?

.
I think this perception is wrong, leads nowhere, and ought to be suppressed, rejected and maligned at every possible opportunity.
.

If you are counting apples, do you start at zero?

.
If you ask me the number of apples I possess, then, when I don't have any, I answer either, "I don't have any" or "zero."

If I wan't to provide an answer (a number) when counting the number of apples I possess, then I want to start "counting" using a number line (or sequential set of numbers) which begins with zero and proceeds (sequentially) 1, 2, 3, ...; I stop at the number which represents the count of apples I possess.

This is NOT rocket science.

[scherado]

But if I am interested in a journey I must of course start at zero distance  from my start point

.
If your journey has not begun (started), then you have NOT traveled any distance and it has not started; and everyone, everywhere and at any time ever who plans, has planned or will plan (in the past/future) a journey, has yet to begin accumulating units of distance traveled. This value can be represented with that thing called zero. In this sense, it doesn't make any sense to state, "start at zero"--the journey is yet to start, has not started.

Further, (get out the duct-tape and apply to cranium) when everyone has started (begun), the distance traveled--expressed in the units of time called seconds, fractional or otherwise--by anyone (person, human) for ANY unit(s) of time,  will never be equal to any other traveler at any time after commencing when measured by a device accurate to ≥ 10 decimal places (units==seconds).

[jeffreyH]

But if I am interested in a journey I must of course start at zero distance  from my start point

.
If your journey has not begun (started), then you have NOT traveled any distance and it has not started; and everyone, everywhere and at any time ever who plans, has planned or will plan (in the past/future) a journey, has yet to begin accumulating units of distance traveled. This value can be represented with that thing called zero. In this sense, it doesn't make any sense to state, "start at zero"--the journey is yet to start, has not started.

Further, (get out the duct-tape and apply to cranium) when everyone has started (begun), the distance traveled--expressed in the units of time called seconds, fractional or otherwise--by anyone (person, human) for ANY unit(s) of time,  will never be equal to any other traveler at any time after commencing when measured by a device accurate to ≥ 10 decimal places (units==seconds).

Happy New Year scherado. Please try to be less confrontational.

[Bored chemist]

If I wan't to provide an answer (a number) when counting the number of apples I possess, then I want to start "counting" using a number line (or sequential set of numbers) which begins with zero and proceeds (sequentially) 1, 2, 3, ...; I stop at the number which represents the count of apples I possess.

This is NOT rocket science.

You  are right on both counts.
Zero is not 1 and it isn't rocket science.

[scherado]

Happy New Year scherado. Please try to be less confrontational.

Happy New Year; Do you take issue with anything in my post? No? Yes?

I take issue with your characterization of my post. Will you please identify the content that is confrontational? Thanks.

[scherado]

Zero is not 1 and it isn't rocket science.

.
Who made the claim that "zero is no[t] 1?" I don't recall typing anything that obscenely obvious. Thanks in advance.

(I added the ' t ' after the ' o ' to make 'not'.)

[jeffreyH]

Use of bold text. Use of underlined text. The condescending manner of the posts. That is how it is coming across. Maybe you don't see that as confrontational.

[scherado]

Use of bold text. Use of underlined text. The condescending manner of the posts. That is how it is coming across. Maybe you don't see that as confrontational.

English? Eh?
Accentuate. I'm accentuating

I'm terse, yes, but I have a cancer patient 24/7, if you must know, 5 years as I type. This is public knowledge on many of the international comments-sections that I frequent.

Shall I name them? I await your answer.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: syhprum on 04/12/2017 22:41:37

    But if I am interested in a journey I must of course start at zero distance  from my start point

.
If your journey has not begun (started), then you have NOT traveled any distance and it has not started; and everyone, everywhere and at any time ever who plans, has planned or will plan (in the past/future) a journey, has yet to begin accumulating units of distance traveled. This value can be represented with that thing called zero. In this sense, it doesn't make any sense to state, "start at zero"--the journey is yet to start, has not started.

In the words of my old navigation instructor: "Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."

[Colin2B]

I'm terse, yes, but I have a cancer patient 24/7, if you must know, 5 years as I type. This is public knowledge on many of the international comments-sections that I frequent.

Shall I name them? I await your answer.

All of that is irrelevant. We all have choices in how we respond to adversity, we can choose to be polite and friendly or not. There are quite a few people on this forum who have or are experiencing significant problems, but they don’t use it as an excuse and remain positive and considerate.
Let’s keep it friendly and polite please as agreed in the forum acceptable use policy. Thank you.