In modern math all numbers are built on set theory which has the empty set as it's foundation.
Empty set is more like 0 than 1. Check mate Unitarians.
Empty set is more like 0 than 1. Check mate Unitarians.
;)
So it is A set. In fact it's "the set" that makes it a rather special one.
If you could start from 0 empty sets, you'd have a point.
Sez who, zigactly? If you are coldtea, I am coldertea. As in, I love my tea colder than you do yours. And starts who? Not me.
Don't kid around, dude. I dik around.
>If you could start from 0 empty sets, you'd have a point.
What if the set of empty sets has no element? :)
In any case, for the second comment: even if the set of empty sets has no elements, it's still ONE set.
No, it was not. Regarding this whole subthread in which I participated, I did it for some mutual logic-chopping fun.
But if you thought there was a chance it was, you shouldn't have replied to the second comment, because I would have been equally under the influence of the drugs for the second, if I had been so for the first comment. (Don't reply to a druggie.) After all, they were both done in one atomic comment transaction.
You can just as well build up numbers and the rest of mathematics from different foundations. They are all equivalent.
Just like running your programs on ARM or on x86 or a toaster is all the same, thanks to emulators. (That's assuming you have an arbitrary amount of memory, and don't mind differences in runtime length.)