Hi, Mark, I didn't say that numbers don't have their place, or that they're not necessary to describe certain things - of course they are. If I want to describe a certain number of things that is more than 41, but less than 43, I think I'd likely use "42". <g>
(Kind of reminds me of the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "...and then counteth to three. Not four. And not two, unless thou thence proceedeth to three...") <vbg> What I said, is that mathematics can't explain ~everything~. At least I don't think so. But, hell, I could be wrong; I often am, as anyone who's on this list can attest to! Mark Roberts wrote: > frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >All are valid. But, all fail to completely and satisfactorily explain ~everything~. > > It has just occurred to me that "42" actually *is* a number. Hmm.... > > -- > Mark Roberts > "Don't try outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my >breakfast cereal." > www.robertstech.com -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
