Usually symbolized by by the cipher '0', 'zero' is a numeric personality entirely confused and disturbed by the several roles it is expected to play. Such a lack of consideration for its mental health has left it as a totally convoluted personality so that attempting to invert it results in it imaging itself as infinity.

In one context it is expected to symbolize the initializing of a cumulative count. Although innumerable counting exercises have been touted as having been successfully completed... for births and deaths and votes and populations and the like... many are initiated which have little prospect of ever having the 'zero' incremented. Thus for example, at the last global census of disembodied gods, the counter remained steadfastly on zero. Certainly this was due partially to the lack of consensus as to the classification criteria and partially to the problem of labelling any god as having been counted. There was no agreement at all as to whether a god should be visible or not, or be able to perform miracles or not, or to have any of the human qualities of power, avarice, jealousy or love. There is also still a zero on the counter for attempts to count the number of really big bangs, the number of invulnerable species and the number of individuals who return from the dead. However valid the count may in fact end up being, in all such cases the incumbent 'zero' inevitably begins to believe in its own indispensability.

In another situation it is allocated the responsibility of marking the reference origin of a space-time continuum. When 'zero' is assigned to such a task, the phenomenon of deferring to it on almost every occasion very quickly results in a pathological dilation of its ego. Positions require its personal certification. Distances require its cooperation and agreement. Even supposedly independent angles and vector quantities require its participation in verifying their relationships. Its self-importance becomes inflated beyond containment.

In the process of designing means to implement certain logical ideas on computing machines, the number 'zero' is usually designated as representing 'falsity', whilst its binary pole 'one' is allocated to 'truth'. All very fine you might think. Not so. By permanently being constrained as the advocate of falsity, 'zero' becomes entirely divorced from reality. In never being permitted to experience 'truth', it is like a slave condemned to a life of labour below ground in the mines of the unfounded.

Whilst some sympathy may be justified because of its size and maturity, it is prudent not to be deceived. In some situations it is almost more trouble than its worth. In spite of threats and counselling, 'zero' continues to pose endless mathematical problems for the unwary. The frustrating dilemmas created by 'zero' are almost infinite. Consider just one simple example.
An extensively used logical argument is stated thus: If A x n = B x n then A = B.
We might be forgiven then for supposing that: Since 4 x 0 = 3 x 0 then 4 = 3.
This is certainly true for literary trilogies in 4 parts and quadrilaterals with one side of zero length, but it is deeply resented by tourists whose 4 home currency units are exchanged for only 3 of the local variety. To avoid this uncomfortable dilemma, the aforesaid rule actually bans 'zero'. In many similar situations, 'zero' is so truculent and uncooperative that it has to be specifically excluded from participation. Trying to count the number of times zero can be subtracted from one is a quite psychotic undertaking.

Such confusion is linguistic swindling. It relies upon the concepts and terms being used vaguely and casually. The predicament will only ever be resolved by cautious examination of the language being used. Every supposedly logical argument purporting to 'prove' an attitude or point of view, relies upon the imprecision and convenient bias of the language employed.