History of the Even Prime Counter-Example**
October 26th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example :: Refuting Outright Lies :: History of the Even Prime Counter-Example**
In a message dated 10/21/2008 1:57:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
[Joe (new)]:
the issue then and now concerns the mode of instantiation that an object of
thought has. ‘there exists an even prime number’ demonstrates that there is a
use of ‘exists’ that does not mean ‘exists as matergy’. thus, your linguistic
frame of reference is inadequate to encompass a psycho-philosophical inquiry
into what there is and the *way* that a particular existent is — what
traditionally is called its mode of existence.
Gentlemen: Joe and Jud:
The even prime is possible because “zero” was added to numbers and
calculation by the Arabs who derived it from Indian and Hindu practice. Greek and Roman
numbers did not use zero but started with no. one. Thus the space between zero
(nothing) and One were precluded. With the zero finally in place No. Two
assumed position as prime and without which modern math and physics would have
been impossible. The irony in this was that from Anaximander to Aristotle a
concept of protohyle was included and which represents a state of nothing or “pure
being” which also is no-thing. Things begin with No. One. For Aristotle “no
thing” represented pure potential because it was a “something” that was empty
nothing. His concept of entelecheia could not proceed without including nothing
or “zero.” He derived this notion from Anaximander’s concept of apieron (that
which is without boundary) and by which The Boundless is, as such, a state of
nothing. or pure being. This notion is included in Genesis 1 as the first
day of creation. That the Greeks and then the Romans did not include no-thing in
their mathematics is thus astounding. Perhaps Jud counts in the zero-less
old Roman style. This was also the case with C.G. Jung who considered the unus
mundus as the acme of unity of conflicting opposites. He thus precluded nothing
or pure being as the agency of pure potential. Zo, vot else ist noo? Check
out Columbia Encyc:
_http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/zero/zero?flv=1_
http://plus.aol.com/aol/reference/zero/z…)
Bernard
