>1 is a singular number>has a specific way to write the object being counted>i.e. 1 tree>every other number is plural>changes "tree" to "trees">this happens with 0>therefore, 0 is plural despite being less than 1
0 being plural makes as much sense as 1 not being a primeit is arbitrary and gay
>>16374524Also you have 0.5 trees not 0.5 tree. Think about why this is true and maybe you learn something
>>16374638I have exactly one half of a tree, bitch.
>>16374694>I have exactly 1/2 of 1 tree>1 treeOooh sorry hold this L
>>16374694Yea and I have no tree, so OP is wrong since that didn't have to be plural despite being a reference to 0 amount of tree.
>>16375675I would say, "I have no trees" personallyalthough I wonder how he would pronounce "I have 0.5 trees"
>>16374524would it be -1 tree or trees?
>>16374698>>16374694hole destroyed, one half anon based and redpilled0.5 trees because point five - trees its right assosiative not left0.11 trees -> 11 trees0.01 point zero one tree
>>16374524today on sci: we attribute meaning to arbitrary rules characteristic of the English language.
Op likes sucking on trunks
>>16375863negative one treenegative one point zero zero zero ... trees
>>16375961Wrong, point zero one trees.
>>16378676This is an English website, maybe you'd be happier on 4retards.foreign.org
>>16380170I'd say negative one trees myself...
>>16382772I would call a negative tree just a hole in the ground myself.
What's P?What's 9?
You're not much of a reductionalist are you OP?
OPs thinking of 9 1s, not 9 purely. It's not only a plural.
>>16382962You can express things like Kelly's Love, Kelly's Greed, Kelly's Want, on a basic universe map made of square sectors in pattern. You can express 9 using 1s. It literally bares resemblance to 9, but to only accept 9 in this format is one-ist stupidity.
>>16382921Which Taylor Swift album is this?
>>16374524Well I mean, technically 0 trees can be written as "no tree" which obviously is singular.
>>16384138>>16375711
