ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Gil Hardwick: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""
• Previous message: Lakshminarasimhan Gopalakrishnan: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"
• Next in thread: Richard Ottolini: "Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""

Someone (who didn't know what he was talking about) claimed that
zero is an abstract concept that doesn't actually exist (as opposed
to the positive reals which do actually exist).

Carl has been one of several posters who have no trouble
understanding that zero actually exists. Then, Eric started
posting his evidence that he understands neither mathematics
nor the English language. :-)

Eric, do you really believe that zero is, somehow, less "real"
than one or two (or three or four or . . .)? Are you asserting
that one (or two or . . .) is less "abstract" than zero? Did
you jump into this thread without understanding the topic?

Al Fargnoli
Who never changed a subject line before.

• Next message: Gil Hardwick: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""
• Previous message: Lakshminarasimhan Gopalakrishnan: "Re: If god exists, what created god?"
• Next in thread: Richard Ottolini: "Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""