|
|
Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Mon, 8 May 95 00:25:08 CST
In article <3oi1v7$6ap@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> =Gee, you've really zeroed in on the point I was making!
> =
> =Zero as a symbol is the concept necessary for the abtract representation of
> ="nothing." Therefore, while "nothing" may have been conceived of well before
> =zero was instituted as a symbol for it, the point I made was that zero must be
> =an "intellectual concept." It is, after all, an abstraction.
>
> 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.
I have no need to explain how nothing fails to qualify as a symbol of
nothing. The point was only that zero, as a symbol, MUST be an intellectual
concept. The original post insinuated that it was not. Now, at this point,
not only have you taken this to a ridiculous height, whereby you insist
that I am saying things that I never even came close to uttering a word
about, I suggest you cease your postings upon this point.
You only obviously have greatly misunderstood what is being said. You have
continued to argue with me as if I were saying things that I neever said,
let alone implied. Nothing _is_ a symbol for the representation of nothing.
I have no idea how you ever decided that I was saying otherwise. Now, leave
it alone, will you?
PS: Is this guy a typical sci.astro poster? Everyone else seemed to
understand the relatively simple point that I was making. What did I just
get lucky and attract the sci.astro newgroup kook?
-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:
ENShook@Alpha1.csd.UWM.edu
Home:
Panopticon@Oubliette.com
|