[NBLUG/talk] OT division by zero OT

[Steve Zimmerman]

On Friday 30 May 2003 07:15 am, Nadina wrote:
> Nope, you're wrong.

> Basically the flaw in your argument is the assumption that zero = nothing.
> Zero as a number is different than the concept of nothing. A $0.00 paycheck
> exists and the amount of it is $0.00. But to divide a $6.00 paycheck zero
> times isn't possible and thus has no meaning - it doesn't leave anything
> with an amount of $0.00.

I suppose you could say that it leaves six people with nothing. So,
n / 0 = n * 0 = 0.  Thank you, Nadina.  You've helped me prove my
point.

Nope, you're wrong.

Zero is quite synonomous with nothing.  Zero is a mathematical term; 
"nothing" is a colloquial term.  In mathematical terms, I can say that 
neither term denotes total absence.  I can say that the space in between 
the pipe and the right angle bracket of the following expression

			< 0 |  >

denotes "total absence of anything" and is therefore distinct from zero, 
but I can just as easily say that the space between the pipe and the right 
angle bracket in the following expression 

			< nothing |   >

denotes "total absence of anything" and is therefore distinct from "nothing."
In both cases there is a *symbol* denoting "absence," and therefore a
contradiction in terms, namely, that a symbol is "something," not nothing.

Thank you for your post.  I enjoyed reading it.

Respectfully submitted,

	-- Steve Zimmerman