Nothing

[palani]

Nothing: anything that lacks existence.

Less than nothing: When a greater is subtracted from a lesser the remainder is less than nothing (as in modern accounting).

But: If nothing lacks existence how can something be less than nothing? And THAT is the concept of IMAGINARY. Once anything has been consigned to the world of non-existence it matters little how many 'nothings' one claims to possess. Bill Gates could be considered the richest man on earth because he claims to own 20 billion 'nothings' but instead he is the poorest man on earth because he considers the imaginary to be real.

Obama can silence a heckler because 'you are in my house' yet he has no ownership in that house. He has nothing real.

[Jerrylynnb]

Palani, your thinking approaches some mathematical concepts that have been worked out for a long time now. Are you a mathematician?

For example, when 10 overpowers 7, then, yes, you might see that the result is nothing, but, it can be measured to be more nothing than when, say, 5 overpowers 4 (-3 versus -1). The concept of negative numbers works out very well so that the idea you expressed of a "nothing" is measurable, and rigid rules apply (a little bit of nothing, a whole lot of nothing, an immensity of nothing, etc.)

When numbers are divided, sometimes they divide out evenly (as in 12 divided by 3), but not always (as in 11 divided by 3) so the whole world of division is expressed as fractions, which are also represented as repeating decimals (such as one-third being the same as 0.333333 -> forever).

Going even further, when one considers the product of multiplying a number by itself, we are introduced to the concept of a "square" number. Right away, then, we start wondering about reversing that operation, so that we ponder the idea of examining a number and wondering which other number would multiply by itself to equal our original number we chose. This then opens up the concept of a "square root", and, behold, it isn't long before we realize that some square roots can never be expressed as a fraction, so we call them "irrational", such as the square root of 2.

Mathematicians keep on with this mental gymnastics and concoct notions of "imaginary numbers" (the square root of minus 1), and "transcendental numbers" (trigonometric approximations), and so forth.

If you are not a mathematician, you'd probably take to it like a frog to water, given your original post.

But be forewarned - it is exhausting. Careless explorers have had mental breakdowns by not taking it easy around some of the more convoluted concepts.

[Serpo]

Nothing................I think you are onto something.........

[Ponce]

As a individual I feel that I am everything...... I may not have what Gates has but I do have all that I need, and a little bit more........how many here can say that about themselves?

V

[Serpo]

As a individual I feel that I am everything...... I may not have what Gates has but I do have all that I need, and a little bit more........how many here can say that about themselves?

V

Me............its not a matter of what you have but what you are Ponce.............

[Dogman]

Me............its not a matter of what you have but what you are Ponce............. Think he knows that, seeing he is a universe unto himself !

;)

[Serpo]

Think he knows that, seeing he is a universe unto himself !

;)

As we all are , just a matter of realizing

[palani]

Are you a mathematician?

I have been known to dabble in the imaginary arts.

[Serpo]

Palani, your thinking approaches some mathematical concepts that have been worked out for a long time now. Are you a mathematician?

For example, when 10 overpowers 7, then, yes, you might see that the result is nothing, but, it can be measured to be more nothing than when, say, 5 overpowers 4 (-3 versus -1). The concept of negative numbers works out very well so that the idea you expressed of a "nothing" is measurable, and rigid rules apply (a little bit of nothing, a whole lot of nothing, an immensity of nothing, etc.)

When numbers are divided, sometimes they divide out evenly (as in 12 divided by 3), but not always (as in 11 divided by 3) so the whole world of division is expressed as fractions, which are also represented as repeating decimals (such as one-third being the same as 0.333333 -> forever).

Going even further, when one considers the product of multiplying a number by itself, we are introduced to the concept of a "square" number. Right away, then, we start wondering about reversing that operation, so that we ponder the idea of examining a number and wondering which other number would multiply by itself to equal our original number we chose. This then opens up the concept of a "square root", and, behold, it isn't long before we realize that some square roots can never be expressed as a fraction, so we call them "irrational", such as the square root of 2.

Mathematicians keep on with this mental gymnastics and concoct notions of "imaginary numbers" (the square root of minus 1), and "transcendental numbers" (trigonometric approximations), and so forth.

If you are not a mathematician, you'd probably take to it like a frog to water, given your original post.

But be forewarned - it is exhausting. Careless explorers have had mental breakdowns by not taking it easy around some of the more convoluted concepts.

Maths may not be Palanis strong point ....hahaha