|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 06/27/07 02:09
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:01:16 GMT dorayme scribed:
> In article <5ed3i4F3898moU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Bergamot <bergamot@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Non-zero length values require a unit: em, px, %, etc.
>
> This is right.
>
> However, there is a small implication here that it is quite ok
> not to use them for zero lengths. Technically this is correct.
> However, there is an issue of some gravity here.
>
> Jean-Paul Sartre was sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft
> of Being and Nothingness. He said to the waitress, "I'd like a
> cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replied, "I'm
> sorry, monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?"
>
> Now surely, if a cup of coffee without milk is different to a cup
> of coffee without cream, then a length without any pixels is
> different to a length without any em width. So those with a
> particular interest in great clarity in their css might be wise
> to use units for zero lengths too. It will do no harm and it will
> communicate more precisely with those who read css sheets.
Actually, the question should be "Is nothing equal to 0?" and the answer
is "No."
Example:
Cookies left in the jar=0
Cookies left in the jar=
Are the above two lines meaningfully the same?
According to (most) scientists, the universe started from a singularity.
Hypothetically, this singularity was nothing (or 0 if your prefer) but
had the theoretical *potential* to be something. Furthermore, the name
"singularity" in this context definitely does not relate to "1" because,
as I have proven elsewhere, you cannot have just 1 exclusively in a
totality unless you consider a possible all-encompassing totality as "The
Totality", i.e. 1, and the only thing in existence forevermore.
Now the next question is "How can you have 'nothing with potential?'"
Isn't that very potential something in its own right? The answer is that
you cannot have "nothing with potential" because potential implies the
existence of time, which, of course, would be not nothing. Ergo, the
"potential theory" is nothing.
Unfortunately, this brings us back to the nothing vs. zero problem. If
zero has no potential, does it not equate to nothing? The only logical
solution is that 0 does, indeed, imply something in addition to itself
(as opposed to "nothing") but which can be defined exclusively by numbers
or other tangible contrivances irrational in scope.
In conclusion, all this goes to prove that religion is inconsummate,
God's existence is inconceivable, and putting units after 0 quantities in
css is an exercise in futility. However, dues to flaws beyond the
markupists' control, it realistically is sometimes not.
--
Neredbojias
Once I had a little bird
That made me rather hasty.
So now I have no little bird,
But it was very tasty.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|