Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Gil Hardwick (
Mon, 08 May 1995 04:34:55 GMT

In article <3oi1v7$>, Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) writes:
>Perhaps you'd explain to us how the word "nothing" fails to qualify as a symbol
>for the representation of "nothing." If you can't do that, then perhaps you'll
>havre the intellectual integrity to admit you don't know what you're talking
>about, though I seriously doubt it.

Carl, dear chap, "zero" and "nothing" are synonyms. The one is quite
agreeably interchanged with the other. As a result, the word "nothing"
does not fail to qualify as a symbol for "nothing", although we would
assert that the effort is just a tad redundant, yes?.

Quite useless, in fact. The typically tautological flatus you enjoy
jerking your gherkin over, as you sit there day after day at your
similarly redundant VAX/VMS terminal with nothing better to do.

"Zero" on the other hand, appears to have become a somewhat faddish
up-market sort of a word with real zing to it. Deployed by Those Who
Do Arithmetic so as to limit the scope of their enquiries and thus
appear knowledgable.

He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270