The ‘not equal to’ sign is semantics. Because in math it ONLY means ‘not equivalent’ to, but that itself rasies A lot of questions in semantics. When I say I am ‘not equal to’ Bob, I could also say i am ‘no’ bob, but as I’ll try and show, thats essentially the same thing as saying I am 0 bob. here’s why:

‘not equal to’ blue= no blue

no blue= 0 blue

therefore, 0 = ‘not equal to’

(yes, purple =/= blue is false, because blue makes up purple… but in the sense that it is either = purple or not equal to purple there is no inbetween - in other words, in shades its a false statement, but in black and white its true.

mathematical ‘not equal to’: Must be 0 becuase its the only number (including infinity) that has no value that can be valued as ‘equal to’… therefore, 0 is ‘not equal to’. All other numbers (including infinity) have value and a degree of ‘equal to’.

Everyday ‘not equal to’: IN every day use you don’t say I am not-equal-to X. You say I am not or I am in ‘no’ way equal to that. So, in every day use, ‘no’ is the language equivalent of ‘not equal to’…

=/= (not-equal-to) = Not equivalent.

mathematically =/= cannot be used to imply other meanings such as 0, but in semantics, 0 is semantic, and No is semantic, along with others I haven’t listed.