The Steel Guitar Forum

Alan: Could you say that in other words ??

Tanks Alan !!

Who's counting?
I know Baz, There's probably some Count counting

Arch.

Archie Nicol wrote:...There's probably some Count counting

And here he is, the Count.

Man, think of the frequent flyer miles you'd get for that trip!

Roger Crawford wrote:Man, think of the frequent flyer miles you'd get for that trip!

...right Roger.

But, I was thinking of the number of bumps I would accumulate on my head from the overhead bins!
Nothing contributes to air-rage more.

I'd be in good shape if I had a quadrillion pennies.
And, I would be most appreciative Alan, if you would calculate for me,
the approximate size of the piggy bank to contain them.

Rick Collins wrote:I'd be in good shape if I had a quadrillion pennies.

I'd settle for just one if it was the right one. At the time worth NOTHING...

'Twas 30 plus years ago, in a calculus book by Sylvanus P. Thompson, that I first encountered the difference between an American "billion" and a British "billion".

He was explaining "limits".

I hated "limits".

A Billion by definition is a Bi- ?llion so Bi = 2 so a million times a million would seem a lot more logical than a thousand million. Of course a thousand million is not quite as impressive. I suppose the American definition of nothing would also follow the same protocol and be even more than nothing or is that less ?

1 US gallon = 6.66139072 Imperial pints

basilh wrote:A Billion by definition is a Bi- ?llion so Bi = 2 so a million times a million would seem a lot more logical than a thousand million. Of course a thousand million is not quite as impressive. I suppose the American definition of nothing would also follow the same protocol and be even more than nothing or is that less ?

1 US gallon = 6.66139072 Imperial pints

...quite logical for someone still living in the mother country (just kidding).

When we build the Washington Eye I'm sure it will rotate "retro" to the London Eye.

Alan Brookes wrote:

Archie Nicol wrote:...There's probably some Count counting

And here he is, the Count.

Hope this guy doesn't 'count' on his fingers!

Allan Munro wrote:...Hope this guy doesn't 'count' on his fingers!

Well he's been teaching the kids on Sesame Street to count for about 30 yrs.
Now I see why so many of the younger generation are confused.

We used to watch Sesame Street between Thermodynamics class, which got out at 10, and Signals and Circuits, which kicked off at 10:30 AM, as engineering school sophomores. "Count! 1, 2, 3..."

Much more entertaining than adiabatic heating or Fourier transforms.

People may well ask, "What have trillions, quadrillions, and so forth, got to do with nothing ?" By their very definition they seem to be an abundance of something.

Not if they're the denominator. One divided by a quadrillion is very very close to nothing.

Only this morning, I awoke about 7 a.m.
As soon I got dressed I walked outside looking for nothing __ I couldn't find it.
My only conclusion is that we're living in the post big band era.
Could there be another possibility?

If it can be quantified, it is something.
Physics concerns itself with something.

All these posts and I don't see where we've even defined nothing.

I guess we are on topic with all the nothing about nothing.

Perhaps we can win an award as the most on topic, topic.

Smooth seas all.

Joe Harwell wrote:...All these posts and I don't see where we've even defined nothing...

That's not true, we've discussed in detail the various meanings of "nothing."
[1] The absence of anything.
[2] "No thing", which implies the absence of "thing", which has various definitions.
[3] The number 0.

The problem is in the English language. When one says "I have nothing" the implication is that one does have something known as a "nothing", whereas one actually does not have something known as a "thing". It is actually a negative sentence, but because the sentence starts off "I have..." looks like a positive sentence. It's a quirk of the English language. If you translate it into another language the problem becomes obvious. In French it becomes "Je n'ai rien"; if you say "J'ai rien" it means you have something. The same problem appears in most Germanic languages, but not in Romance languages. In Dutch/Flemish one would say "Ik heb niets", which looks like a positive statement, but "niets" means "niet iets", which means "not anything".

Almost all the discussion in this topic hinges around statements in one of the three categories which I listed above, intentionally read as if they were in a different category, in order to purposely confuse.

This is the humour section, remember.

Joe Harwell wrote:If it can be quantified, it is something.
Physics concerns itself with something.

All these posts and I don't see where we've even defined nothing.

I guess we are on topic with all the nothing about nothing.

Perhaps we can win an award as the most on topic, topic.

Smooth seas all.

Joe,_________thanks for NOTHING!

http://www.nothing.net/

Hi Alan-

Sorry if I come across as "serious".

Believe me, my posts to this thread are strictly humorous.

I agree on your points about a working definition.

Many of the greatest minds in history have wrestled this very topic each according to their school of philosophical thought sparking some very heated arguments at times.

Indeed the English language becomes very awkward and cumbersome when trying to communicate. I think the ability of "high" German and classical Greek have ability to create new words to match a concept. Two German words that pop into my mind that are particularly rich are aktionsart(aspect of action) and lebensvelt(lifeworld). The world of technology has spawned the principle within the English language.

Enough of that. Languages do fascinate me.

Back to the hermitage to light some candles and study some scrolls !

Hi Rick-

You're most welcome.

That's my job !

We can't leave nothing alone. We've come too far to let it die.

So right, we better not forget nothing!

I'd put in my two cents but I can't recall where I left them...