Why Nought? Trivia Quiz

Answer: Zero

Also called the "hypocentre", ground zero is the point on the Earth's surface directly below a nuclear explosion. In the case of underground nuclear detonations, the term can also refer to the point of the Earth's surface directly above the explosion.

The term has a surprisingly recent origin, from the Manhattan Project during World War II. The first atomic bomb test in 1945 at the Trinity Site, New Mexico, had the bomb detonated from atop a tower. The scientists working on the project coined the term "ground zero" in their technical reports, to define the point on the ground below the tower, which could be used as a reference point when analysing the impact of the explosion on the surrounding Earth.

The term came into public consciousness after the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the conclusion of World War II. In Hiroshima alone, where the bomb detonated about 600m above the ground, some 12 square kilometres (4.7 sq mi) of the city was destroyed, along with 69 percent of the city's buildings. The former Prefectural Trade Exhibition Hall, now known as the Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Dome, is often mis-identified as ground zero. The building and dome remained intact amidst all the destruction thanks to its location almost directly underneath the explosion. However, the Dome is 160m northwest of the actual ground zero - the site of Shima Hospital, which was completely destroyed. Today, there exists but a small and understated plaque here, with the small, rebuilt Shima Hospital still operating on the site to this day.

The term "ground zero" is no longer exclusive to nuclear detonations. The sites of other significant disasters including the World Trade Center targeted in the 2001 9/11 attacks, the 1917 Halifax explosion in Canada, and the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion in Lebanon, have been referred to as ground zero. The term is also used in context of epidemics, meteor air bursts and earthquakes.

Answer: Year 0

The Gregorian calendar is used by most of the modern world, and seems to be the calendar of choice here on FunTrivia. All calendar systems (at least the useful ones) must have some sort of reference point from which they begin, called an "epoch". The Gregorian calendar uses an estimate of the birth year of Jesus Christ as its epoch. The terms anno Domini (AD) and before Christ (BC) designate years with reference to this epoch, with AD years counting forward from this epoch, and BC counting backwards.

Sounds simple enough. However, if we unpack this further, we see a few fascinating historical factors that complicate this simplistic explanation. We shall work backwards through the history of Roman calendars, with all years referenced being those of the modern Gregorian calendar, and not the historical calendars being discussed. I promise we will get to the reason there is no year 0! But first, I will indulge in the issue of leap years.

The Gregorian calendar has been in use for over four centuries. It arose in AD 1582, fixing an issue with the preceding Julian calendar in use since 46 BC. The Julian calendar calculated a solar year (the time it takes the Earth to complete one full revolution around the sun) to be 365.25 days (365 days per year, with a leap year of 366 days every four years). In reality, it is approximately 365.2422 days; about 11 minutes difference per year. Chump change, you may say. However, over the 1600 years of using the Julian calendar, it had drifted by 10 days. This meant the calendar was drifting further and further out of synchronisation with the seasons, equinoxes and solstices, making it less useful and reliable.

The fix was relatively simple. By altering the frequency of leap years slightly, one could reduce the error to just 0.00031 days per year compared to the solar year, drifting 1 day every roughly 3236 years. The new rule to achieve this is simple but effective:

* every year divisible by four is a leap year, except:
* every year divisible by 100 is NOT a leap year, except:
* every year divisible by 400 IS a leap year again

Thus, by skipping the days between Thursday October 4, 1582 and Friday, October 15, 1582, and implementing these rules, the Gregorian calendar was brought back into line with the solar year. The first full day of drift in the Gregorian calendar will be around the year AD 4909. Authorities of the time will have a decision to make - whether or not to skip a leap year to fix this problem. I like to imagine that the United States (and perhaps Myanmar and Liberia) will decide to stick with their "imperial calendar" while the rest of the world corrects the drift in the new "metric calendar". Or, perhaps we will have achieved world peace and a unitary shared decision for all of humanity. One can dream.

There are also ways to mathematically "fix" this issue so the calendar will never drift in the 5 billion odd years remaining before the Sun dies and swallows us all. However, with relatively unpredictable astronomical variations to account for (the Earth's solar year is very slowly lengthening, and other factors can vary the length of the year ever so slightly), no system can be set up to account for this over such a long time horizon.

OK, back to the epoch and Year 0. The Gregorian calendar inherited its epoch directly from the Julian calendar of the time. However, this epoch doesn't date back to the Julian calendar's origin in 46 BC. It was actually set in AD 525 by Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus. Previously, the epoch had been set to count the years from various events, such as the start of the reign of previous Roman emperors. Dionysius set out to replace this with the "incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ", which he estimated to have been 525 years prior. Interestingly, modern historians have pinned the actual birth of Jesus to around 6 to 4 BC, meaning Dionysius's estimate holds up fairly well, centuries after the fact, without modern historical knowledge and sources. Dionysius did not extend his system to BC; this was later added by other scholars.

Having found his epoch, Dionysius set this as the start of year 1, or AD 1. This immediately followed 1 BC. So what happened to year 0? Quite simply, the concept of zero as a number had not yet seen widespread adoption in Europe, and so Dionysius, who may not have even known of the concept, could not have foreseen the wisdom of including it. It took until the 13th to 16th centuries for the concept and use of zero to gradually take hold in Europe.

A more recent modification of the Gregorian calendar that does feature a year 0 is the Astronomical year numbering, which designates an integer to each year. AD years retain the same number as their Gregorian counterpart, while 1 BC is the year 0, 2 BC is the year -1, 3 BC is the year -2 and so on. This numbering simplifies calculations, but does introduce some confusion when trying to convert BC years from historical astronomical sources.

Answer: Nil

In football, a scoreless draw of 0-0 is usually pronounced "nil-nil" in British and Australian English (and likely also in other variants of English that I cannot vouch for). This breaks with the usual convention where all other ties, such as 1-1 or 2-2, are read out as "one-all" or "two-all" respectively (though "nil-all" is occasionally used). In contrast, American sports viewers would more likely read a score of 0-0 as "zero-zero" (and lament the lack of scoring action).

Games ending as nil-nil are fairly common in football, occurring in around 5-10% of matches in the world's most popular competition, the English Premier League, and pushing above 10% in some other defensive-minded competitions around the world. Though they have generally become less frequent in the last 20 years, they still remain a significant source of frustration and boredom for spectators. I'm not aware of any other sports with scoreless draws occurring with such regularity, particularly without a tiebreaker to break the deadlock at the end.

While many cite the possibility of a scoreless draw as a major weakness of football, I prefer to view it a little more philosophically. We don't watch sports just to watch goals or other scores. The tactics, the players, the stories and the build-up play, and scoring opportunities, remain compelling in the absence of a definitive goal or winner. The low scoring nature of football elevates the thrill and exhilaration felt with each shot, goal, save, or miss, and forces players to toil at the margins of the possible, a few inches separating glory from defeat. If the occasional scoreless draw is the price to pay for all this, I'm on board.

Answer: Love

The quirky scoring system of tennis is a thing of legend. Players earn points in sequence from 0 to 15, 30 and 40 (but not 45), with the next point winning the game (except when it's forty-all, which is actually called "deuce"). Six games wins you a set (except when you need seven), ditching the point values of 0, 15, 30 and 40, and instead counted as 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Two sets wins you the match (except when you need three), but results will always be summarised as the game scores of each set, rather than just simply the number of sets won. And most pertinent to this question, 0 is not "zero", but "love".

As with most of these quirks, we really have no idea how this terminology came to be. A popular explanation is that it derives from the French expression for "egg" (l'oeuf), drawing on the shape of eggs and the numeral "0". Others think it arose from the phrase "playing for love", as in "for the love of the game" rather than any other tangible benefit. Even if you have no points, you still play on, for the love of the game. Similarly, some will argue that it originates from Dutch or Flemish phrases relating to "love" or "honour" (these languages are closely related to English as fellow Germanic languages). Perhaps there is some truth to all these theories. Unfortunately, the real answer seems to be lost to time.

Personally, I favour a connection to the shape of an egg, as it ties in nicely with the term "duck" in another sport (as we shall see shortly). Some linguists argue that the theory is dubious since there is no historical evidence of such use of "l'oeuf" to represent "0" in other contexts in the French language. This counter-argument does not convince me, as there is no need for a term specific to one sport to have been employed more broadly. Just look to cricket to see how often weird, wonderful, and unique terms can appear with no precedent or alternative use. Furthermore, as we see with internet memes in modern culture, there is often no rhyme or reason to why some hyper-specific things take off, spread and mutate through specific communities. But that's just my two cents as a non-expert in linguistics and history.

Answer: Duck

When a batter gets out in cricket without scoring any runs, they are "out for a duck" (alternatively, they "got a duck"). Similar to one of the hypotheses about the origin of "love" in tennis, it is thought to be a reference to the similarity between the numeral "0" and the shape of a duck's egg, later abbreviated simply to "duck". Why they didn't just stick to "egg", and why a duck's egg of all the avian eggs to choose from, is anyone's guess. Such is the nature of cricket's weird and wonderful lexicon.

Ducks are a common but unfortunate fate for batters, particularly lower-order batters who specialise in bowling rather than batting. Yet perhaps the most famous duck is that of the legendary Australian batsman Don Bradman in his final Test match. Averaging 101.39 runs per wicket coming into the match, he needed only four runs to secure a career average of over 100 runs. Alas, he was bowled for a duck and has forever been stuck on an average of 99.94.

Answer: Double-O

A creation of British novelist Ian Fleming, suave spy James Bond holds the code number 007, pronounced "double-O seven". It is not known how exactly Fleming settled on this number. It is likely related to Fleming's World War II service, where agents of a particular British spy branch were given a "0" prefix after completing training in how to kill. Another theory is that the 007 bus route from Canterbury to Kent provided inspiration, as it ran through a region Fleming once lived in (and it still does to this day).

Whatever the origins, 007 is now etched into media folklore with the long-running popularity of the Bond film series. A "double-O" designation grants agents a "licence to kill". Fleming's works only mention five 00 agents (006, 007, 008, 009 and 0011), though several others have been included in other media such as films, video games, and books from other authors. As can be seen by agent 0011's designation, 00 agents are not limited to just the ten designations from 000 through 009, putting no limit on the number of such agents possible.

Answer: Nothing

"Seinfeld" was created by comedians Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld. Airing from 1989 to 1998, it ran for 180 episodes across nine seasons. Set in New York City, it stars Jerry Seinfeld as a fictional version of himself, alongside his three friends - George, Elaine and Kramer.

The show was initially pitched as showing how a comedian gets their material from their everyday interactions, and exploring some of the worst qualities and thoughts that people have. It mixes scenes of fictional Seinfeld's stand-up comedy with mundane day to day interactions of the characters. A later episode self-referentially described "Seinfeld" as a "show about nothing", which stuck with audiences as an apt description, though the creators have expressed disagreement with this characterisation of the show.

However you describe it, "Seinfeld" is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential American television shows of all time, leaving behind a legacy of iconic quotes, scenes, episodes, and even the fictional December 23 holiday "Festivus".

Answer: Noughts

A classic game that you'll likely remember from your childhood, noughts and crosses traces its origins back to ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, and even the Puebloans of North America. To play, one simply needs something to write on, something to write with, and a willing opponent.

Noughts and crosses is a great introduction to critical thinking and problem solving for children, as the relative lack of possible moves means the game can be "solved" by hand fairly easily without using computer processing. With perfect play from both players, following a very simple algorithm that even children can memorise, the game will always end in a draw. Once knowledge of this algorithm has spread through a cohort of children, the game's popularity will usually fade.

To keep the game alive, many variants of the game have been devised. The simplest modification is to alter the board's dimensions from 3-by-3 to "m"-by-"n", and the number of Xs or Os required to win to a value "k". These games are called "m,n,k" games, with standard noughts and crosses being the 3,3,3 game. While it can be fun to work out optimal strategy and outcome for the smaller m,n,k games on your own, it quickly moves into the realm of advanced mathematics and computer proofs as the grids get larger. Other fun variants include the ability to move pieces after they are played, the choice of putting either an X or O on each move, or even reversing the win condition by trying to force your opponent to get three in a row first (misere variations).

Answer: 0000

Though of course it will vary somewhat by country and convention, military time generally uses a 24-hour clock to avoid confusion between 12-hour (a.m. and p.m.) clock times. The clock starts from 0000 at midnight and runs through to 2359 before ticking over back to 0000 the next day (or from 0001 to 2400 in some systems). This is an efficient and unambiguous system, making it useful for applications requiring precision and brevity, such as military and medical settings.

The pronunciation of military times also varies from that of 12-hour time (again, depending on convention). 0735 may be read as "zero seven three five" rather than the more common parlance of "seven thirty-five". Exact hours may be read as "hundreds"; 0700 being "seven-hundred" (sometimes "oh-seven-hundred") and 2200 being "twenty-two hundred". In some conventions, the word "hours" follows the numbers to reinforce that time is being referenced, as opposed to other types of numbers.

Some 24-hour clock conventions will borrow the colon from the 12-hour clock, e.g., 00:00 for midnight. This risks confusion, where an a.m. time (such as 07:00) would be ambiguous if the reader did not know if a 24- or 12-hour clock was being used. Omitting the colon is usually a feature of only 24-hour clocks, reducing the chance of ambiguity.

Answer: Null

The equator and the prime meridian cross at the coordinates 0°N 0°E. This location is in international waters of the Gulf of Guinea in the Atlantic Ocean, some 600km from the nearest mainland in Ghana. At times, there has been a weather buoy moored at this location, however for the most part it is just an open expanse of deep ocean, with a depth of around 4940m (16,200 feet).

The name "Null Island" became widely used in the 21st century. When mapping software encounters coordinates that are missing or otherwise cannot be placed accurately, they often default to 0°N 0°E. This collects such data points at Null Island's location, leading to apparent quirks such as military bases, restaurants, and even people's running routes being mapped in open ocean.

Were it located on solid land, I have no doubt that 0°N 0°E would be a very popular pilgrimage point for geography nerds and mildly curious explorers alike. As it is, we instead get the delightful curio of Null Island. Some people have even created elaborate fables about the "Republic of Null Island", with a national anthem of pure silence (or perhaps white noise), a bustling tourism scene, and, my favourite, a fitting motto - "like no place on Earth".

Answer: 1

Forgive me if I may indulge in a short mathematics lesson; I promise this one is easy enough to follow! (But I forgive you if you choose to move on to the next question).

Factorials of non-negative integers (0, 1, 2, 3 ...) are equal to the product of all positive integers equal to or smaller than the integer. If that explanation left you scratching your head even more (I hear you!), some examples should make it much clearer:

1! = 1 = 1
2! = 1 x 2 = 2
3! = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6
4! = 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 24
... and so on

Seems simple enough. So if we take the same logic backwards to zero, we should get the following:

0! = 0

Yet this is incorrect! The widely accepted result is actually 0! = 1. This is a result that puzzles everyone who first ponders what the value of 0! would be. Our first instinct to explain this may be as follows. Notice that we are only multiplying POSITIVE integers (not including zero). If we did include 0 in the list of numbers to multiply, we would end up with 0 for every result:

1! = 0 x 1 = 0
2! = 0 x 1 x 2 = 0
3! = 0 x 1 x 2 x 3 = 0
4! = 0 x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 = 0
... and so on

Clearly, our initial list of numbers to multiply for 0! should not include 0. So then what should it include? Well, by the definition of factorial I first outlined, there would be no numbers to include. Thus it would be fair to assume that 0! does not have a solution (is undefined), just as 2.5! or pi! cannot be written out as a list of numbers to multiply.

And yet, mathematicians have agreed that 0! is defined as equal to 1. This is difficult to explain without further exploration of a branch of mathematics called combinatorics, but this definition just makes sense and neatly ties into a range of other formulas to make everything work out nicely.

As a final note, I was a bit sneaky in bringing up 2.5! or pi!. While you indeed cannot write them out as a list of numbers to multiply, mathematicians use a function called the gamma function to extrapolate the values of the factorial function beyond just integers, meaning there are valid solutions to these expressions. The details of this function exceed my mathematical abilities, so let's all move on!

Answer: 0

Euler's identity is considered to be a shining example of beauty in mathematics. When expressed as e^[i*pi] + 1 = 0, it takes on its maximum beauty, though it can be presented more simply as e^[i*pi] = -1. I do appreciate that written without mathematical formatting, it is hard to feel the full power, and I encourage you to look this up if you wish to really appreciate it.

Keith Devlin, professor of mathematics from Stanford University, perhaps puts it best; "like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's equation reaches down into the very depths of existence".

Much can be said about why exactly an arrangement of a few symbols can evoke such descriptions more fitting of humanity's best art and literature. At the most basic level, Euler's identity shows a deep connection between many of the most iconic and fundamental values in mathematics, which are first introduced to students in disparate and seemingly unconnected contexts:

* The number 0 - also known as the additive identity
* The number 1 - also known as the multiplicative identity
* The number pi (3.14159...) - the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle, and famously an irrational number where the digits never repeat
* The number e (2.71828...) - Euler's number, another irrational number with no repeating digits, which simplifies calculations involving exponential and logarithmic functions, amongst other properties
* The number i - an imaginary/complex number defined as the square root of -1

The identity also features exactly one occurrence each of the functions of addition, multiplication and exponentiation.

To me, what really makes this identity special is that even after seeing and understanding its proof, it scarcely feels plausible that such seemingly disconnected numbers, some of which cannot even be written out if you had infinite time, space and ink, or else do not correspond to any real physical property in the universe, can be united with such symmetry and simplicity. I don't know what exactly to make of this. Euler's identity hints at a profound underlying structure to the universe that is likely beyond the mammalian brain's capacity to comprehend, yet the knowledge of its truth brings a deep sense of comfort that sits well with my human need for order and simplicity.