0: The Grammatical, “Oddball”: 0 is a peculiar number—a bit of an, “oddball” — particularly with regard to grammatical structure. If you have 1 of an object, you will generally communicate that you have 1 (object). If you have 2 or more objects, you will generally communicate that you have (number) (objects). That sounds pretty straightforward, right? What about 0, though? It is a bit strange. It is, “the, ‘odd,’ number out” — pun intended (as 0 is generally considered to be an even number). (It is also generally considered to be programmatically positive.) {{Pause=1.000}} If you write or print the following fragment, “I have 0 …” do you follow it with a singular or a plural term? In general grammatical usage, the number 0 is followed by a plural term. Wait a minute here. If I have 1, I have, “a (or, an) (object).” If I have 2 or more, I have (number) (objects). But, if I have fewer than a single (object), I have 0… ob, jects? That is odd (pun intended again). {{Pause=1.000}} To complicate things, how about this? When you use the phrase, “not one,” do you follow it by a singular or a plural term? The phrase, “not one,” is generally followed by a singular term. However, if you contract that phrase into the word, “none,” it becomes generally followed by a plural term. This is curious—very curious indeed. Is, “none,” not still, “not one”? Should it not still be followed by a singular term? In rare cases, the word, “none,” is followed by a singular term. But, as a general rule, the word, “none,” is followed by a plural term while the phrase, “not one,” is oftentimes followed by a singular term. Again, this is curious—very curious indeed. The greatest of mathematicians probably use 0 quite often and, perhaps, even on a daily basis. However, there are probably, not many, if any, of them who stop to consider the grammatical oddities (your third pun for the day) of the number 0. Oh, how about taking the curiosity one final step further—fractions. This does deviate from the topic of 0 specifically; but, it is still quite the curiosity within grammar. If you measure the thickness of a coin, you might say that the coin is, for example, 1⁄4 of an inch thick. Where it gets a bit, “sticky,” again, as with the word, “none,” is with mixed numbers. Using the coin example again, let’s say that the coin was, in fact, 1⁄4 of an inch thick. How about its diameter? Let’s measure that. {{Pause=5.000}} That looks to be, oh, I’d say… maybe 2 1⁄2 inches. But, some might speak that preceding part as, “That looks to be, oh, I’d say… maybe 2 inches and a half.” That falls back mostly to personal preference. What do you think? Had, “you,” considered the, “oddball,” nature of the number 0?