a response to a forgotten post

This is all well and good, however, 
to say: 0 = 1-1 (or 0 = n-n or 0 = n + (-n) )
is very different than to say 0 = 2
which you set out to explain.
In this case also, it is just as arbitrary to say 0 is 0 as it is to say 0 is 1.
I would just rephrase the above as:
1 = n / n

(of course this changing of 1 to 0 is irrelevant, below is the more important point:)

you can attach whatever metaphysics you like to the symbols, however they remain logical symbols with logical definitions.

What does an expression like 0 = n + {-n} mean if logic (or logic illogic) is itself one of the 'dimensions' in your reckoning? if it isn't, then your representation of 'everything' is ultimately flawed. If logic is not within your definition of everything(your statements F & C), then Logic pre-exists 'everything'. So what 'creates' or 'comes before' logic.(See your statement G)

Sun Apr 23, 2000 12:26 am