Sae,

It isn't a container because it can contain no things. By definition a container must be able to contain at least one thing. Because this is a container that can contain a maximum of 0 things it is therefore improperly labeled as a container, much like a four sided triangle is actually not a triangle. Can you make a container that can contain a maximum of zero things? No it is logically impossible. It is easy to make a container that contains no things but that is a different issue entirely.

Rhizo

PS yes I am in the mood try to close a tupperware container using just one hand, it is an impossible feat, but the effort is what counts.

(March 17, 2010 at 11:22 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I think you are talking about a solid object and therefore not a container. To talk about a container that holds a maximum of zero object is to speak of a logically impossible thing, like a triangle with four sides.

Not so. It simply contains nothing. Why would a thing that contains nothing be impossible?

Quote:Another way to look at is a division by zero. A container that can hold a maximum of 8 things but only has 2 things in it could be expressed as 2/8ths full so a container that holds a maximum of 0 items, no matter how many things are in it would always be expressed as x/0 which is undefined in mathematics.

Undefined ≠ not being a container. Clearly the container contains nothing

Are you suggesting that we cannot contain nothing?

Smilies aside, you are still creating a strawman argument because Adrian didn't propose a container filled with nothing but a container that contains a maximum of 0 things.

(March 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Sae,

It isn't a container because it can contain no things. By definition a container must be able to contain at least one thing. Because this is a container that can contain a maximum of 0 things it is therefore improperly labeled as a container, much like a four sided triangle is actually not a triangle. Can you make a container that can contain a maximum of zero things? No it is logically impossible. It is easy to make a container that contains no things but that is a different issue entirely.

Rhizo

PS yes I am in the mood try to close a tupperware container using just one hand, it is an impossible feat, but the effort is what counts.

I'm bringing into question your definition of container. If it can contain nothing... then why couldn't it?

I'm just making counterpoints here.

---

(March 17, 2010 at 6:14 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Smilies aside, you are still creating a strawman argument because Adrian didn't propose a container filled with nothing but a container that contains a maximum of 0 things.

A container that can contain only nothing must contain nothing. Why not after all?

Sae,

In your own thread you call nothing a thing which is different than 0 things right.

(March 17, 2010 at 6:26 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Sae,

In your own thread you call nothing a thing which is different than 0 things right.

How would 0 things be different than nothing?

0 things (and also nothing) is only a thing so far as its not being a thing (It's what we call those vague 'interruptions' of thingness between things... there is nothing within that 'interruption' but the 'interruption' certainly exists. Hence nothing both exists (as that 'interruption' between things) and doesn't)

That make any sense?

It does to me, I see them as the same, but in your thread about nothing you seem to insist that nothing is 1 thing which is different from 0 things. So, that is where we dissconnect, containing a maximum of 0 things means that the container is in fact not a container and should be defined as either non-existent or a solid object.