You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] Opieswife 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ok this was interesting. I haven't really thought about this before but I totally get what the author is trying to say. At first I wasn't sure where he was going but at the end it came together. Looks like I have more reading to do. :)

0
2

[–] VIP740 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't remember when I first came across the distinction, but I do remember the first time I tried to explain it to someone else. It went something like this:

Well zero isn't exactly the same thing as nothing. If you have a graph of y=mx+b there's a point on there where y=0. But with nothing... err, um...

Yeah, I get what you mean, it's not nothing, it's zero. If you have nothing... (scratches head).

0
0

[–] Opieswife ago 

Lol thanks I also struggle sometimes with explaining what is in my head.

So sounds to me like this person's definition of zero is when we are referring to something specific like there are zero eggs but nothing is perhaps more general or more encompassing and doesn't refer to anything specific. Nothing means not only are there no eggs but there literally are no other things. Sounds silly but I believe that is what he means.