Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Sat, 6 May 95 19:48:02 CST
> =In article <Admin.0wdg@oubliette.COM>, Panopticon@oubliette.COM (Eric Shook)
> =wrote::
> =Well, gee, Proff, since zero didn't even exist as a concept prior to around
> =800 A.D., then why is it _not_ also an intellectual concept?
>In article <3oe2mg$f6l@gap.cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
> writes:
>
> Now, here we apparently have an idiot who confuses the existence with zero as a
> concept with a the use of a digit to represent zero in a positional system of
> numerical representation. The two things are NOT equivalent.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
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.
You have only wet yourself as you exctiedly stumbled all over yourself to
find reason to call me an idiot, to which I take personal offense.
-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:
ENShook@Alpha1.csd.UWM.edu
Home:
Panopticon@Oubliette.com
|