It looks like there's some kind of new math around these days, math I definitely missed in five college math courses. I was sitting here minding my own business when I became aware of it. This bottle of "Orange Creme" flavored water I'm drinking is sitting on my nightstand. Its back was toward me as I reached for it, and this is where I saw...it...new math! See it? The calories? Anyone know when this new law involving zero came along?

It's Signature Select, which is a Vons house brand. Tastes great, by the way! Just like those orange Dreamsicles(?) from childhood.

This is kind of like being stuck in an MC Escher drawing! You're overlooking the fact that each serving has zero calories. If we cut up the bottle and eat it, each third having 5 calories, then that conflicts with its labelling...

It's most likely just an oversight with the label manufacturer(poor quality control). This even happens to big brand names, especially when not everything is made in-house and they need to outsource. Labels are very commonly outsourced. Some overworked and underpaid person made a boo boo. So they either meant to label 0 cals per container or 5 cals per serving. I bet if you contact them about this they'll have some snazzy explanation that doesn't involve admitting to a mistake.

Thanks, you're probably spot-on. But you know what? It's more fun trying to figure out how this new math works.

No, no, no, and no. You can't eat the bottle when it's full. You can't cut the bottle until it's emptied.

Well my old math agrees with GT's calculation. If there are 3 servings per container, and the whole container is 15 calories, then a serving is 5 calories, not 0. And further consultation with the Internet, which never lies informs me that 1g of carbohydrate contains 4 calories, and the bottle says that a serving has 1g of carbs. This kind of ties in with the 15 calories per container (3g carbs). So I conclude that the 0 calories per serving is the error, and should be 5 calories.

calories are heavy!!! so they sink to the bottom of liquid. water on top.. no calories for the first 2 servings. 15 calories for the last and 3rd serving. duh!!!!

That's all well and good, my friend, but our problem involves multiplying the stated 3 servings by 0 calories, and ending up with 15. Hence, the 'new math' title. We must throw standard logic out the window! So far, I think the 'bottle itself contains calories' and the 'calories sink to the bottom' theories are most promising, but they still don't prove that 3 x 0 = 15

I did actually ask around the math teachers' office on this one, and the most likely conclusion is it's a typo, and not that the bottle is edible and wasn't included in the servings.

The 0 actually represents an unknown quantity for we do not actually know the serving size. About three is what we have to go on. 15 calories per container is the given. Two gulps per container would make 0 = 7.5 calories. Three gulps and 0 would equal 5 calories. Four gulps 3.5 etc.

My guess is dumb labeling regulations. Like "less than 5 calories can be said to be "calorie free" or something stupid like that.

Ooh I know.. part of 'common core' math. AKA: only makes sense to the ppl 'making up' the answers when writing the label, Lmao

Yes, when doing stuff like labels.. I think the general practice is $$/per character and the single digit '0' is effectively a much cheaper cost than the 10 digit 'negligible'.. then multiply it by like a million times. Drastic cost savings = faulty label..??

i think the rounding of numbers is most LIKELY answer. rounding to nearest 15...0, 15, 30, 45....etc... example: bottle has 21 calories... round to 15 21/3 = 7 .. round it to 0