(Updated a bit, some typos corrected (I’m very tired…))

The old definition of the knowledge defines the knowledge in the following way: In order to consider something as knowledge, it must meet three criteria: It must be justified, true and believed.

People often say, that there are no absolute truths. But is it an absolute truth, that no absolute truths exist?

Let’s consider this, is it an absolute truth that no absolute truth exists. If it is, we are in contradiction in that, that no absolute truth exists, because if it was an absolute truth, that no absolute truth can exist.

So, one can’t absolutely deny the existence of an absolute truth –> contradiction follows.

Also, the absolute truth is stronger than “every day” truth, so is it even possible to cancel out absolute truth by pure “every day” concepts?

On the other hand, what if someone says, that no truth exists (relative truths, “any” truths)? Is it true that no kind of truths exist? If it is true, we have contradiction again, because it was “true”, that no truths exist.

I see an absolute truth stronger, than relative truth or “any” truth, stronger than “everyday” truths. Considering the definition of knowledge on every day knowledge, the relativity of truth questions, that is any actual or “real” knowledge possible.

Considering an absolute truth, if we had “found” one, and we would attach it to the definition of knowledge, would we be forced to think the definition of knowledge again, because of the stronger perhaps fundamental characteristics of an absolute truth?

I mean, this sounds ridiculous, but if we had logical statement on the paper that actually was an *absolute* truth, would it must be also justified and believed? Perhaps the properties should be something stronger too…

*To eight goes two four times;*

*To six slips it three times;*

*To four it fits twice;*

*To zero it doesn’t fit;*

*No pairs are there in zero.*

*No trace of two.*

*”Where’s my pair?”*

*Zero asks…*

There are finite number of letters. If we limit the length of a word to finite amount of letters, the number of all possible words is also finite.

If there were infinite number of letters in a word and this word consisted of infinite amount of sounds, the pronunciation of a word would never end.

As there are finite number of words, also the number of consepts formed from these words is finite.

On the other hand, if we would create consepts in mathematical way, we could have infinite number of consepts. Though, all of them couldn’t be explicitly ever written nor said in finite amount of time.

I’ve sometimes wonderd, that how many meaningful natural languages of humans’ from all of these finite number of words could be formed — also how many grammars. What we understand by “meaningful language” might be hard to define…

The title is a bit absurd, we could examine the distance of any number from itself..

In the previous post I examined the property of distance being even or uneven. Let’s go back to distance of zero from itself. Formally the distance of zero from itself is |0 – 0| = 0. 0 mod 2 = 0, why isn’t this distance even?

The distance doesn’t exist, instead of distance we have a point. Euclid’s definition to a point is: “A point is that which has no part.” In Euclid words the “distance” of zero from itself, |0 – 0| = 0 has no part. Something like this isn’t even or uneven.

In an e-book called “The Way To Geometry” it says, that magnitude of a point is zero.

Philosophically speaking a point is what Democritus called “atomos” applied to geometry.

In short, there isn’t distance of zero from itself. The meaning of distance |0 – 0| = 0 is geometrically a point, something that has no part.

The main point is, that I see zero as a neutral number. What does that mean?

- Zero isn’t even or uneven
- Zero isn’t negative or positive
- Zero doesn’t have numerical opposite

*The meaning of the video clip: “..achievements: Zero.”
*

*Probably zero is my greatest*

*achievement too…*🙂

Semantically zero is *none*, not nothing.

In multiplication zero overrides the neutral element property of one: 1 * *a *= *a*, but if *a *= 0, zero “zeroes” one. The number one doesn’t keep the identity of zero, but zero “zeroes” number 1’s neutral element property and keeps the identity of its own.

Let us examine the even and uneven property of zero from point of view of distances.

The distance of number 2 from zero is |0 – 2|= 2. 2 mod 2 = 0; 2 is even.

The distance of number 3 from zero is |0 – 3|= 3. 3 mod 2 = 1; 3 is uneven.

The distance of number 4 from zero is |0 – 4|= 4. 4 mod 2 = 0; 4 is even.

But what about our friend zero?

The distance of number zero from itself is |0 – 0| = 0. 0 mod 2 = 0, but now the meaning of zero is, that the distance doesn’t exist. There isn’t distance from zero to zero. The distance that doesn’t exist isn’t even or uneven. Therefore now zero can’t be considered even or uneven.

Let us assume again, that a person has a collection of 100 books. The books are in a shelf in way that between some books there is an empty space. Probably we can say, that the empty space is part of the collection at least visually considering the whole, although that empty space is something different than a book.

In general an empty space can be filled with a book, so that the book is surrounded by an empty space. If no empty space existed, a book couldn’t be taken away from the collection of the books (or in this example put a book to the shelf).

Therefore empty space is part of every collection of books..

I have to correct some things I’ve written about the empty set.

Let’s start. Let A = {0}. Now A \ {0} = {} = Ø.

That is: We get the empty set. Let’s go beyond that.

I’ve written in this blog earlier ”emptyness can be created, ‘nothing’ can’t be created; nothing is from which the creation begins”.

At the beginning of this post, we created emptyness, we got the empty set as a result. By the means of the set theory we can’t get rid of the empty set. It’s as empty space as we can get. Also, in the poetic thought of mine I’ve written, that emptyness can be created, ‘nothing’ can’t be created.

So, we can’t get to this ‘nothing’, we can just see, that it is a ”state” that is ”before” the empty set, for the sake of perfectness. 🙂

A symbol to this ”state” could be

The order: ‘nothing’ → emptyness → something.

This new “collection of nothing” can’t be considered really a set; it actually doesn’t exist, but still, it is there — at least it was… Perhaps it will be… Somewhere…