Talk:0

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:0. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:0, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:0 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:0 you have here. The definition of the word Talk:0 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:0, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

un-redirect 0

Done.Rmo13 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Removed definitions

  1. (computer science) bit state corresponding to binary digit 0, or FALSE; in a logic gate off or the low state.
  2. (mathematics) A Boolean or truth value corresponding to FALSE.

Maybe someone could explain to me how a bit state isn't a binary value, or how Boolean logic isn't a group over disjunction? Davilla 17:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I get your objection, but don't think you're being literal minded enough:
  1. Perhaps the subject should include (electrical engineering) since the a bit state in an actual electronic device corresponds to a particular voltage range, usually less than some threshold tolerance. Thus it should also include the synonym low state.
  2. In Boolean logic the value 0 is synonymous with FALSE which is not the case with any other algebraic structure, for example, the integers modulus 2. Wikipedia has both Boolean logic and Boolean algebra separately. Most computer languages recognize Boolean truth operations, but not more abstract algebraic operations. N.B. the capitalization in FALSE is significant.
Can we agree to restore these with amendments/understandings?

Finally, the Boolean domain cannot be used for numbering. In particular there is no representaion for 2 which is distinguishable from 0, that is there is no successor function in a Boolean algebra. Rmo13 03:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

0

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Uh, how is this a different sense? 72.177.113.91 08:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Delete. —Michael Z. 2009-03-12 15:33 z
Delete sense with extreme prejudice, before we end up with separate "senses" for every font in existence. -- Visviva 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
User:Rodasmith added item as an alternative form, since some of the digitized numerals are considerably distorted and stylized. Someone else later moved it to a sense. User:Rodasmith made this addition to all of the Arabic numerals. —Stephen 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
For a symbol, we could include an illustration showing its historical development, or its different expressions (manuscript, blackletter, uncial, but I'd consider LED display, which simulates a sans-serif font, as a low priority). But this would be an encyclopedic supplement, and not part of our core dictionary information about the term. —Michael Z. 2009-03-13 14:52 z

Deleted with prejudicial extremedom. Would be interesting to have a library of glyphs though. 63.95.64.254 03:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Full-width digits

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Where does ０ belong? They are used in Japanese (more consistently) and Chinese. Anatoli 05:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll bring up in GP. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I have replied there and created Japanese entries for full-width numerals. If they are used in other languages or end up being translingual, this can added later. Anatoli 10:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

RFC discussion: November–December 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This may have been discussed before, but I don't see it on this page or the talk pages of those entries: we are inconsistent in our treatment of the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9:

  1. In the translingual section, we give 0 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "noun" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  2. In the translingual section, we give 1 the header "symbol" and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (2) a digit, and mathematical things; in the English section, we give it the header "symbol" (and adjective), and the senses "cardinal number" and "numeral".
  3. In the translingual section, we give 2 the header "symbol" and English example sentences, and define it as (1) a cardinal number, (3) a digit, (2) a numeral, and mathematical things; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of to or too.
  4. In the translingual section, we give 3 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, and we have no English section.
  5. In the translingual section, we give 4 the header "symbol" and an English example sentence, and define it as a number (but not a cardinal number); in the English section, we do not treat it except as a representation of for. There is also a note on the talk page about a Russian sense we should consider.
  6. In the translingual section, we give 5 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (doubted) representation of MI5.
  7. In the translingual section, we give 6 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; in the English section, we do not treat it except as a (not-doubted) representation of MI6. We also have an Italian sense that should be checked.
  8. In the translingual section, we give 7 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  9. In the translingual section, we give 8 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; and we have no English section, although we could note that it is sometimes a representation of ate.
  10. In the translingual section, we give 9 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number; we have no English section.
  11. (NB, we give 10 the header "symbol" and define it as a cardinal number, but also give it the sense "perfect, on a scale of 1-10", although we don't have corresponding senses at the other numbers.)

So... what should we standardise on? What senses should the translingual sections have (numeral, cardinal number, both, etc)? Should we have English sections for the numbers? If so, what headers (symbol vs noun, vs eg numeral) and senses (numeral, cardinal number, etc) should they have? Should the translingual sections have English example sentences? Note that 0 and 1 have translingual example sentences. — Beobach 21:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

NB also Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup/archive/2010#Entries_for_cardinal_numbers. I will standardise all of these soon. — Beobach 06:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have for the most part standardised 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I now turn to zero, one, etc. — Beobach 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have now for the most part also standardised zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. I have yet to look at higher numbers. — Beobach 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


Disappearing title

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see something weird. The title of this symbol "0" is not shown on the main page. <h1 id=firstHeading> disappears. Can anyone fix this? --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Me too. I checked the French version and the Wikipedia page, and found the same problem. It is very likely to be a bug of MediaWiki. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
The bug seems fixed.— TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

.00

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's the reason behind adding to numerals ".00"? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia