2 - 2 + 2 - 2 = 0 there's a zero in the middle there, no? When you add an additional decimal point to a sequence, does it change the meaning of a sequence? After all, it is merely a point, no?

zeroes 0.1

grey~
---zeroes 0.1---
I know it now: Life is merely a recurring set of zeroes set in a random sequence so as to avoid nothingness, no? I tried to place the decimal point slightly to the right, followed by non-zeroes, you know? The non-zeroes seemed to represent something in the face of nothing. See what I'm saying? But it didn't really work out. So, in other words, take away the clutter and you have zeroes, like I said, recurring in a random sequence, like I said. Twice two equals four? Absolutely! Two minus two equals? Zero? Well, hello old friend! Where have you been? Right here, you say? Oh how I have missed you!
~sid

zeroes 0.2

grey~
---zeroes 0.2---
I know what you're thinking: And what exactly is zero, anyway? You were thinking that, no? I will answer that first question with a question of my own: What does it matter what the definition is if you already know it as an old friend? You know it as the oldest of friends, in fact. I could most certainly put some words on some paper to define zero, as it were, but why not simply point my finger instead? Or perhaps I could take zero in my hand and feed it nothing ever so gently. Would you like to hold my pet zero? Careful now, there's no telling how fragile my pet zero might be. But what about the other zeroes, you ask? How are they to defend against nothingness without so much as a single helping hand? See, this is where the definition gets tricky. When your definition turns into an explanation, you've definitely gathered too many extra words that will do nothing but muddy the pristine glacial runoff. I'll just point instead: Look!
~sid

zeroes 0.3

grey~
---zeroes 0.3---
What's that? I'm sorry old friend, I can't hear you. The silence is too much for you these days? Or should I say too little? Go ahead, move the decimal point away from the zero a little bit farther. Move it farther, not further, mind you. If you go moving it further then we've got a whole new set of complications on our hands. But go ahead and move it. Move it only enough to produce the highest decibel level, though. Correction: move it far enough to produce the highest comfortable decibel level. Comfort is always key, old friend. Surprisingly, a zero followed by a decimal point, followed by zeroes eradicates silence. Correction: it *can eradicate silence. In the end it can produce true harmony or pure noise - which do you prefer?
~sid

zeroes 0.4

grey~
---zeroes 0.4---
Battle of the zeroes - who wins? Is the winner simply the zero that is most absolute in its quest? Or the most absolute and the most focused? Perhaps that is so, perhaps not. But I do know with a low degree of uncertainty that the roundest zero often claims to be victorious. Aim for perfection of circularity: at least this is what I have gathered with some rather roundabout methods. When two zeroes collide, what occurs? The short version: chaos followed by an overlapped existence. The zero composed of the most perfection takes front stage in the hall of perception. Is there any other front stage? That is, if perfection comprises the perception of the zero, to an absolute degree, is there really any room for doubt? In the end, it is an overlapping victory that varies depending on the direction of wind. There's no breeze today, you say? There's nothing I love to hear more!
~sid

zeroes 0.5

grey~
---zeroes 0.5---
The zero in the middle is almost always the most overlooked. Listen, I'm not talking about some clichéd middle-child analogy here. This is important stuff, not some bad TV show fodder to fill the role of mundane small talk at tomorrow's proverbial water cooler. The zero in the middle is often the most overlooked. This is often the case with a lot of things, no? Well, I say that zero is no different. Why is it that zero is always looked at differently? Twice-two minus twice-two plus two: The answer is two but there's a zero in the middle there, no? Go with the crowd and forget it, right? Don't mention it - don't even look in that direction. Move along. The middle zero rests comfortably in the unknown space. That's the zero that ends up in my pocket, carried to a better existence and placed gently in the bowl on my shelf. It will sit there with all of the other forgotten, misplaced zeroes. What are you doing? Stop looking in that direction! Move along, I said! Forget it, I said! After all, it is merely a zero, no? Have you never seen a middle zero before? What does it matter if it is here or there?
~sid

zeroes 0.6

grey~
---zeroes 0.6---
Take two zeroes and place them next to one another. They are twins, no? Perhaps they are even identical by some definitions of the word? Keep in mind, though, that whether they are fraternal twins or identical twins is really of no matter here. So, I'll go ahead and say that the two zeroes are, in fact, twins. But, I ask, what about their shadows? Is the shadow of a zero identical to that of its twin zero? I suppose the answer to that question depends, again, on definitions available to you at any given time. Oh, here I go again! I must apologize. Please, carry on without notice, without a mention even. You heard nothing, saw nothing, felt nothing, remember nothing. Nevertheless, the sun has set so this conversation will have to be had another day.
~sid

zeroes 0.7

grey~
---zeroes 0.7---
Free is nothing more than zero cents, no? And how you say that zero is worth nothing! I won't go so far as to call you a fool, because I don't really believe that. You are no fool, at least not in the purest sense of the word. So, if twice-free equals zero, and free minus free also equals zero, then zero must have a value of which I personally cannot fully comprehend. But to which ultimate solution does the evidence point, I have to ask, when you consider that it's very possible that the value of zero can be comprehended by zero percent of people? I say nothing to that because perhaps that makes me the fool. I am no fool, though, although I hesitate to say there's a zero percent chance of that statement being false. Quit this foolish behavior, already! Go and find me a sale, put in on a scale and tell me what it reads. Zero?
~sid

zeroes 0.8

grey~
---zeroes 0.8---
Food can have zero taste, no? Indeed, food can have zero taste. I think it is safe to say that we have all experienced that unfortunate scenario. But what about the experience of nothing tangible that leaves a really bad taste in your mouth? See, this is where it gets all complicated. The answer is an easy one, though. Zero is being ill-treated. Zero is being neglected. The wrongful campaign against zero is moving ahead at full speed, looking to obliterate the poor, unsuspecting chap. I am here for you old friend! You will always have a safe haven here on my shelf. Stay a while, if you will. Or stay a while longer even. It'll bring one single tear of joy to my eye.
~sid

zeroes 0.9

grey~
---zeroes 0.9---
I have inherited a zero. There, I said it. I feel much better now! But what is one to do with a zero that pretty much shows up on one's doorstep unannounced? Or dare I say both unannounced and unwanted? I suppose I will do nothing for now, but that strategy surely cannot last forever. I fear that if I leave my newfound zero sitting there untouched for too long, anything can happen. Well, not anything, but something. Something will surely happen. Nothing will happen, you say? Have you not been listening? This is not an old friend we are talking about here! All zeroes are old friends, you say? Fool! I will bury this zero in the backyard next to old bush back there. Yes, that's what I'll do.
~sid

zeroes 0.1.0

grey~
---zeroes 0.1.0---
Question: When you add an additional decimal point to a sequence, does it change the meaning of a sequence? After all, it is merely a point, no? Does the simple presence of a point make that great of a difference? Take "point" and "pt." – the two have the same meaning, no? Does the presence of a point - or a pt. – really change anything? Let us ponder this: what if the sequence is composed of only zeroes? Or, even further, what if the sequence contains only ones and zeroes? Am I mad, you ask? You call me mad through an unspoken question that may or may not be rhetorical and I'm the fool? Or was your use of the word mad referring to anger there? In that case, again, perhaps I am the fool. You must forgive me, as my head is cluttered with varying levels and variations of zero. As I near the point of nothingness the answer is, unfortunately, nowhere clearer or closer. At least I don't see it. This empty room that I speak to standing at this here virtual podium seems oh so very quiet. Hello? Is anyone there?
~sid



sid <
I think I have, to use your own words, zeroed in on the answer here. Take two equal parts: One is positive, one is negative. What do you have? I will agree with you, Sid, that this is indeed an interesting question. But others may think differently. Perhaps others think that the question of the true nature of zero is, in fact, quite an uninteresting question.
You know what? I don't blame the others for thinking that. You know why? All of this zero-this and zero-that talk can really be quite tiring and unexciting. But it does help that no one is really listening to our discussion, you know? How do I know this? Stop and listen: do you hear that? Neither do I.
In any case, why question the question, right? In my estimation, asking that question is simply too easy. Questioning the question is, in fact, often the path of least resistance. Nevermore, others will say what they will say; or they will ask what they will ask. I'll take zero for what it is. It is here now, and, in any case, there is no denying its existence.
We could, of course, bury zero in the snow but it's only a matter of time before it gets pushed down by melting snow and ice and new layers of snow only to surface on the ceiling somewhere down below. It could be a long, long time - I understand this - but it will resurface. This I know with a high degree of certainty.
Maybe that's it - maybe it's all just a matter of degrees. Shift a few degrees here or there, right? First, you must determine the proper degree, then you must adapt to that. Yes, and there are some who are more adept at adapting. "Welcome home, friend!" is really only slightly off from "Go away, scoundrel!" "But how many people really use the word scoundrel?" You will ask, of course.
You see, people like to use "zero" and "nothing" synonymously but that couldn't be further from the truth. Nothingness only exists in the absence of numbers, in the absence of mathematics, really.
You taught me that, Sid. Reality is bigger than what you or I or us as a collective whole see and comprehend and, thus, nothingness is smaller than what we can comprehend?
Zero is a mountain peak to nothing's cavern.
I say now that it's time to put this all to rest. The information is all there and I have zeroed in on the answer. I can see it right there! You can't see it? Right there! Zero is not nothing but something. I do believe!
> grey