Re: One and Zero

Hi Arik,

Thanks for your feedback.  I really appreciate it.  I will answer your
questions below.

> I'm afraid I need more clarification.
>
> Although you use mathematical language, you are describing abstract
> concepts. You're anthropomorphizing the numbers one and zero,
> assigning them moral values and behaviors.

Yes, I know.

> Then you use statements like:
>
> "One always remains one, zero always remains zero. They are completely
> separate. Two parallel lines who never meet"
>
> Which confuse me - are you at any point in this article actually
> referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?

Yes, the whole article is about the numbers one and zero.  For
example, "One always remains one, zero always remains zero" refers to
what happens to them when they are multiplied by themselves (or more
generally speaking, powered by any positive number).

By the way, one and zero are the only numbers (integer, real or
complex) who remain the same when multiplied by themselves (or powered
by a positive number except one):

x^2 = x    <=>
x^2 - x = 0    <=>
x * (x-1) = 0

> And the same goes for logic. You are making extremely subjective,
> stereotypical claims about the numbers one and zero, and then you
> attempt to apply logic to your statements. Is it really logic? You
> write words in a language of logic but I have a feeling you're not
> really following logical rules in your deductions.

The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.

But although this article is about numbers, it's not a professional
mathematical article.  It's literature.

> The way that makes most sense to me when I read this article is as a
> "stream of consciousness" free associations following one another.
> This form does not have to adhere to any sort of logic and you can use
> symbols from any language. It also explains the rapid and disconnected
> changes in the subject. If you tell me that neurotoxins were involved
> in the creation of this piece, I will not be surprised. Otherwise it
> is pretty difficult (albeit possible, with some training) to capture
> such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

I didn't write it on drugs, if that's what you mean.  I don't take
drugs.  But in the past, there were times I took psychiatric drugs,
which are neurotoxins.  I object to taking neurotoxins, and why I took
them is a long story.  Sometimes they were forced upon me.  But at
least two months before writing this article, I didn't take any.  (a
few months ago I was put in a mental hospital against my will, and
psychiatric drugs were forced upon me).

> And a slight correction: "Google" is a name of a popular search
> engine. "Googol" is the name of the number one followed by a hundred
> zeroes.

It's not a mistake.  I decided to spell both of them "google".  I
don't make any difference between "google" and "googol".  But usually,
when I refer to the number I spell google, and when I refer to the
company I spell Google (with a capital G).

Sometimes people decide to change spellings of words.  For example,
some words in english are spelled in american english differently than
what they are spelled in the traditional, british english.  And since
I don't like the spelling "googol", I decided to spell it "google"
instead.

Actually, Google itself is a "play on the word googol", as they phrase it:
http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

If you want to see another article on a similar subject, read my
article "The limits of knowledge":
http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=14

Uri.