[NBLUG/talk] The Romans' ban on zero

[Steve Zimmerman]

On Thursday 29 May 2003 02:02 pm, Andru Luvisi wrote:
> What are you trying to accomplish?

Conversation and help.  I can see how my words over
talk at nblug have been inappropriate at times.
For any offenses I committed against you, I apologize.

I cannot apologize for offenses that you (perhaps have heard)
that I have given others.  It is up to them to contact me themselves,
if they wish.

Should I have offended anyone else, if you wish, please contact me
over my personal email: stevetux at sonic.net.  I would be happy to 
make amends.  This would also make it easier for me to be know
what is appropriate and what is not.

As far as the division by zero thing goes, it was my honest perception
that it was just a fun, chatty, kicking around of ideas.  If I offended
anyone else, please let me know.

> You ask for help with shuffling cards, and then when I give it to you, you
> argue with me.  This does not make helping you attractive.

I can see your point here.

> You ask for help with translating Euclid's algorithm into Perl, and then
> when Eric gives it to you, you insult Perl.  This does not make helping
> you attractive.

I can see this point too, but it is for Eric to come to me himself if he so
chooses; he should not do it by "proxy."  I'm not saying that he did,
but it is inappropriate for you to rebuke me on his behalf. 

> You ask for help understanding the "divide by zero" question, and then
> when people give it to you, you argue with them.  This does not make
> helping you attractive.

This again, is inappropriate.  I don't think you should be rebuking me on 
behalf of others.

> If you do not understand something, it does not necessarily mean that it
> is wrong.  It might just mean that you do not get the whole picture yet.

> If something goes against common sense, it might mean that common sense is
> wrong.  Common sense comes from common situations, things that we have
> direct experience with.  In higher math, we frequently deal with things
> that we have never had any experience with, making our experience and our
> "common sense" less useful.
>
> I have noticed that you have made several comments to the effect that you
> do not want to be flamed.  I am guessing this is because you have been
> flamed elsewhere on the net before.  You will probably not be flamed on
> NBLUG, but if you continue making it difficult for people to help you,
> then you may at some point be ignored.  For your own sake, I suggest that
> you try harder to understand what we tell you before you start arguing.

Again, I would prefer that you speak for yourself and not for the group. 

> With that said, your common sense view that you cannot divide nothing into
> something is correct.  What this means is that if you try, you cannot get
> back a meaningful answer.  Zero is a meaningful answer.  It is a value.
> 1/0 has no value.  Not even zero.  "Undefined" means just that.  It does
> not exist, which is another way of saying that you cannot devide nothing
> into something.

That makes sense.  Thanks for the reply.

To the group as a whole:  Please do email me at stevetux at sonic.net if I
have offended you.  Please do not speak for others if you do so, just
yourself: how have I offended *you*, not someone else.   
I think that is a fair way to do it.

Respectfully submitted,


	-- Steve Zimmerman