|
|
Re: ZERO (was: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Eric Shook (Panopticon@oubliette.COM)
Wed, 17 May 95 14:11:44 CST
In article <797@landmark.iinet.net.au> gil@landmark.iinet.net.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
> In article <3ordni$1cb@unogate.unocal.com>, Richard Ottolini (stgprao@sugarland.unocal.COM) writes:
> >"Zero" is perfectly concrete concept.
>
> The problem with your argument here, Richard, is that concepts cannot
> be concrete. The concept is only an idea, an abstraction.
>
> In this case the symbol "0", which is called nought or zero, is used
> to represent the idea here in concrete reality; that is, on this
> screen image I am reading right now, or more usually in writing on
> paper.
>
> Or alternatively in electronic data storage where it is assigned the
> ASCII byte value 0110000, or Dec 48, Octal 60, Hex 30, and so on. The
> computer itself is told merely to TREAT that byte as zero, vis a vis
> 0000000 (Dec 0, Octal 0, Hex 0) which is NULL, or nothing at all.
Why, thank you, Gil!
Finally someone else has posted to this ridiculous argument, seeking
to _re_solve_ what should be obvious. I have never been very good at
stating the obvious. It is my greatest short-coming. It makes it
hell to dump well known information out onto the test paper for a brief
essay. I mean, why should I simply be repeating stuff that the professor
just told all of us in the last few weeks, we all heard it didn't we?
I'm always caught trying to integrate the information in new ways,
expressing what was implied by the information, or what consequences
of impact it might have upon other information that we covered. I'm
greatly disadvantaged when it comes to stating the obvious.
-- Eric Nelson --
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:
ENShook@Alpha1.csd.UWM.edu
Home:
Panopticon@Oubliette.com
|