Isn't zero simply one point in a series of values where values one side of it are arbitrarily ascribed 'minus' values, and those the other side 'plus' values? And is it not the case that until mathematicians were able to conceive of and use zero as a valid value, that most maths didn't work?
Pi is an expression of the relationship between two properties of a geometric figure, no more, no less. We can use an approximation of it in our real-world calculations to design things, but we always have a degree of inaccuracy built-in to those calculations, which we can more or less ignore. It may be mind-blowing that we can never bring it's calculation to a conclusion, but it ain't magic and it ain't religion! To bring it back at least towards being on-topic, I try to compose my Pentax pictures with either a sense of 'stasis', or a sense of dynamism, and will use the so-called 'golden mean' or rule of thirds', unconsciously as these merely describe the theoretical analysis of what I see as the balance of the elements in the composition, achieving the effect I want. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Dobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Vs: Numbers and the Golden Section > I think the most universal and mathematical number is '0'. Why that is, I > don't know, but why should a number that supposedly has quantitative value > represent 'nothing'. You can't put a value on something that does not > exist, yet we do. It means nothing and is nothing, but we make it > something. Just a thought. > > Brad
