Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Mon, 08 May 1995 04:34:55 GMT
In article <3oi1v7$6ap@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, 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
|