Someone make me proud.

>+1

(of a word or form) denoting more than one, or (in languages with dual number) more than two.

1. Relating to or composed of more than one member, set, or kind.
2. Grammar Of or being a grammatical form that designates more than one of the things specified.

I have no dogs.

Discuss.

do you have cats

Based on the thread context, you have one dog?

~SE++

if me and my friends have 10 yolos, jimmy has 3, and lamar has 4, how many yolos do i have?

Zero because YOLOs are worthless crap.

~SE++

Think Boolean.

If I have no dogs, it follows that I have no dog.

That depends. Are Jimmy and Lamar your friends?

i just hang out with them because yolo

That's a fine reason, for sure.

On-topic, I have no friends (plural). So do I have more than one? Or do I have none?

yololololol.

This is why formal logic doesn't use English.

You know what we need to define? "Semantics". Go go go.

For English, plural does not equal "greater than 1". Plural equals "not 1". Think about it.

Yep. I have one friend.

I have 0 friends.

You say -1 things not -1 thing.

No offense, but websters and the oxford dictionary disagree. Thus, I would have to go with the people literally defining every word in the human language to the best of human ability.

@storm, you can't have -1 friends, and language is not meant to really refer to negative amounts of things within normal use. 0 is not plural either. Adding s onto the end of a word if 0 is an adjective describing it is just a rule of the english language, not something that implies the word is plural.

This........ is pretty much all I can say on the topic. Because past what is literally the dictionary definition, you can normally defend any definition you want for most words if you ignore the dictionary. Because assuming a false positive at the beginning of a circular argument can go a long way. You have to accept something as a standard, or using any words at all to describe any other words at all is completely pointless. And a dictionary is normally it.