Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "Proof That Zero Does Not Exist" video.

You are allowed to say lim 0 (x —> 0) = 0. This is one of the defining characteristics of the limit.
2
Your question is incoherent. There is no dividing by 0.
1
0 = lim 0 (x —> 0) is indeed true. 0 = 1/x – 1/x for all x, so lim 0 (x —> 0) = lim 1/x – 1/x (x —> 0) is indeed true. However, lim 1/x – 1/x (x —> 0) = lim 1/x (x —> 0) – lim 1/x (x —> 0) is an incoherent statement, since lim 1/x (x —> 0) does not exist.
1
Since a number indicates a value, zero indicates the absence of any value. No, it does not. This is gibberish. There is no such a thing as "value" in mathematics. There is no textbook where you will find a rigorous definition of the word. Numbers are just abstract mathematical tools. On that end, 0 is just a number, just as any other. This may not be math, but it makes sense to me. Maybe it makes sense to you, but it is just false regardless.
1
@SequinBrain Your counterexample literally works against you. Having $0 in the bank account is a thing. It is called "having an empty account." And it is different than not having an account at all. Your argument is ridiculous.
1
@SequinBrain Yes, and a bank account with $0 has a value. And it has a higher value than a bank account that has $–10. This is basic, and somehow, you fail to understand.
1
@SequinBrain You are literally the one who decided to bring up banks and compare it banks. Not me. I am merely responding to the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of each of your comments. If you think the comparison is flawed, then that is your mistake, not mine. This is your argument, not mine. Grow up and own up to your mistake.
1
@SequinBrain I'll say this, and since it's the second time I've said it, I'm repeating myself: the subject is "value." Banks have value or the account doesn't exist. I agree, but this supports my point, not yours, and you are the one who brought banks, not me. Also, this is also me repeating myself. The subject is value, not "things." Or if it is things, it's things that have value, and like 0, things that don't. zero is the absence of value. zero destroys everything it touches like zero oxygen destroys humans. Well, no, that is just factually incorrect. 2^0 = 1. 0! = 1. cos(0) = 1. ζ(0) = –1/2. Saying "zero has no value" and "it destroys everything" is about the most childish mathematical viewpoint I know of. zero multiplied by anything destroys its value and gives it none. The inconsistency is introducing a new subject when we haven't finished the first yet. You were the one who introduced the subject of banks, not me. This is your mistake, not mine. This is the last I have to say since I'm repeating what's already been said and apparently not comprehended yet. No, I comprehend it just fine. I am not confident you comprehend my response, and the fact that you say this strengthens my doubt.
1