The two types of Zero

[Brickjectivity]

I didn't know about 'Null', thank you. But I already have a use for Zero Undefined, and it's for understanding what the word 'nothing' means in more depth. I'm someone who has developed my own philosophy I use to understand life, and it's important for me to know exactly what nothing is in every context it's used. I guess you could say I'm like a programmer who needs to know what every value does, so I can write a program correctly (but switch out program for philosophy).

Just don't start a cult, please! I don't want to be guilty of helping to found one. By the way I once started a cult here in this forum called The Cult That Is Not About Brick. Would you like to join? We get volume discounts on whatever the cult buys. Here is a handy link:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-cult-that-is-not-about-brick.226769/

 

[bobhikes]

I have realized that there are two types of zero in Math, and both are important to understand. Here they are:

A. Divisible Zero: This version of zero would function within the conventional mathematical framework, where zero is treated as a numerical value that can participate in arithmetic operations. For example, in standard mathematics, zero divided by any non-zero number is zero, and this rule would apply to 'divisible zero'. This concept aligns with the traditional understanding of zero in mathematics.

B. Zero Undefined: This type of zero would represent a concept that is not just the absence of quantity, but an absence of definable or divisible substance. It's a conceptual placeholder for something that is fundamentally indeterminate or unquantifiable. In this context, dividing 'zero undefined' would not make sense, as it represents a state or condition that is beyond the scope of standard arithmetic operations.

Allow me to give you an example as to why these two zero types are important. Say you have a basket of 3 oranges and 1 apple. When counting how many oranges you have, the apple would be a 0 in the equation, but it would be a divisible zero because you understand that if you divide the apple in half, you will get two slices, but it would still be zero oranges. But let's say in that basket there were only known to be 3 oranges. In this case zero would be Zero Undefined because the absence of oranges in the basket couldn't be said to be the amount of space remaining in the basket because it was never said there was nothing else in the basket, it was only said there were 3 oranges, therefore you cannot divide that type of zero in half because it hasn't been defined enough.

(Right here I deleted something about 0/0 because I realized I had made a mistake. However, the rest of everything is correct. Still, I would like to clarify that I've realized Zero Undefined is more useful for philosophy than mathematics.)

Actually, I have written a piece about two types of math Linear and Dimensional. In Linear Math Zero is a Number in Dimensional Math Zero collapses the dimension. If you have a X dimensional object and you zero a dimension, you now have an X-1 dimensional object or Zero X dimensional objects. and you also can't divide a dimensional object by zero dimensions.

Differences in Linear Math if you have 2 apples and multiply them 2 times you now have 6 apples your 2 and the 4 that were multiplied. If you take 3 steps and you are going to multiply you steps 2 times you will end up 9 steps from the beginning.

My old write up follows:

In linear logic.
Division
8/1 =4 Shown 1111 | 1111 (1 divider 4 on each side)
Multiplication
2 * 3 = 8 Shown 2 apples org + 3 multiples (2 apples + 2 apples + 2 apples) = Total 8

In Linear logic 8/0 = 8 and 8*0 = 8

Dimensional Logic
Dimensional division A value is made up of multiple dimensions represented as a whole.
Literally 16 is actually 8 * 2 or 4 * 4 etc. If you were to divide it you must keep the dimensions so 16/1 is just 11111111|11111111 or 16 because we represent the dimensions as a whole, a zero dimension and you no longer have that object.

16/2 = 8 or (1111|1111) + (1111|1111) = There are two 2 dimensional objects made up of 8 units each.

16/4 = 4 or (11|11) + (11|11) + (11|11) + (11 |11) = There are four 2 dimensional objects made up of 4 units each.

 

[Revoltingest]

Null is meaningless mathematically....

Not what I recall.
It could mean an empty set,
or that an equation has no solution.
Pretty meaningful, eh.

I'm sure you knew this already, but
I had to object to the statement.

 

[Echogem222]

Just don't start a cult, please! I don't want to be guilty of helping to found one. By the way I once started a cult here in this forum called The Cult That Is Not About Brick. Would you like to join? We get volume discounts on whatever the cult buys. Here is a handy link:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-cult-that-is-not-about-brick.226769/

No, it's not a cult. It's called Flawlessism, if you'd like to know more about it, there's a reddit community r/GoodAndEvilReligion where you can learn more about it, but the reason why I'm not giving you the direct link is because it's restricted to 18+.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly what would count as proof to you in this situation? Because I've already explained enough of it for anyone who understands philosophy to understand what the proof is.

Well, a proof would consist of clearly stating your premises and giving a sequential argument that arrives at your conclusion. As far as I can see, your idea of undefined zero is just irrelevant.

So, please give your argument.

 

[Echogem222]

Well, a proof would consist of clearly stating your premises and giving a sequential argument that arrives at your conclusion. As far as I can see, your idea of undefined zero is just irrelevant.

So, please give your argument.

You see it as irrelevant because with your values, it is irrelevant. If you were a philosopher, you would not see it as irrelevant. So no, I will not go more into this with someone who is clearly still a beginner in philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

You see it as irrelevant because with your values, it is irrelevant. If you were a philosopher, you would not see it as irrelevant. So no, I will not go more into this with someone who is clearly still a beginner in philosophy.

No, I see it as irrelevant because it seems to have no connection to 'whether death is a true end for us'.

Could you be more explicit about the connection and how it supposedly proves that 'death is not a true end for us'?

Among other things, you need to define what you mean by the following:
1. death
2. true end

Then, you need to show the link between 'undefined zero' and any of those concepts.

I am certainly NOT a beginner in philosophy. Quite the contrary. But I *do* think that most of metaphysics needs to be completely rewritten.

 

[Echogem222]

No, I see it as irrelevant because it seems to have no connection to 'whether death is a true end for us'.

Could you be more explicit about the connection and how it supposedly proves that 'death is not a true end for us'?

Among other things, you need to define what you mean by the following:
1. death
2. true end

Then, you need to show the link between 'undefined zero' and any of those concepts.

I am certainly NOT a beginner in philosophy. Quite the contrary. But I *do* think that most of metaphysics needs to be completely rewritten.

Ok, fine, thank you for clarifying your view on philosophy. Here is the explanation I believe you're looking for:

Many people see death as the true end for themselves because they think in their head that to become nothing means to become nothing at all, not realizing such a thing is a logical contradiction. Let me break it down:
When our body dies, we become a non-applicable existence to the way we once were, which is alive in our body, but just because our body no longer functions does not mean that we just suddenly stop existing in every sense.
But let's just try to make the argument that it's possible when we die, we stop existing in every sense. What would that entail? It would mean that we never existed at all, for our existence to be erased from time fully. But we all know death isn't like that since we can remember people who died. Ok, so it's impossible for us to fully stop existing after we die, but what about partially?
Let's imagine that we are the first number 1 in the following equation: 1-1=0. Well, it would seem at first glance that it is possible for us to become 0 since you can subtract 1 from us to get zero. But let's change this math equation into a word problem. Timmy had 1 apple, but after losing that apple, he then had none. In other words, 1-1=0. In this case the apple would be the first number 1, but it's not as though the apple just disappeared from existence when it was taken away from Timmy, no, it changed locations, but in the context of Timmy having any apples after losing one, he had none, just as we stop existing in this life before death, does not mean that we don't exist at all, it just means that our existence exists elsewhere, far enough away that it's no longer relevant to this life.

Ok, so where is that location? Because if I can't imagine it being anywhere or know where it is, then it might as well not be anywhere at all. Well, in this case, that would be a 'less than non-applicable existence', a location with such little relevance to this life that you'll just never think of it, but just because you'll never think of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But hold up, all of this time, you've been expressing a type of non-existence that truly doesn't exist at all since you've been explaining what non-existence isn't, right? That is incorrect, because I can only explain what non-existence isn't because non-existence IS something, in that it has an applicable existence in explaining non-applicable existence, less than non-applicable existence, etc. Therefore, it exists in some way or another, therefore, existence always exists, even if it's not relevant to what you desire or are thinking about.

(Just to clarify, a 'Divisible Zero' is equal to a 'Non-Applicable Existence', and a 'Zero Undefined' is equal to a 'Less than Non-Applicable Existence'. It's important to mention them in math due to properly defining 'nothing' in every context)

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, fine, thank you for clarifying your view on philosophy. Here is the explanation I believe you're looking for:

Many people see death as the true end for themselves because they think in their head that to become nothing means to become nothing at all, not realizing such a thing is a logical contradiction. Let me break it down:
When our body dies, we become a non-applicable existence to the way we once were, which is alive in our body, but just because our body no longer functions does not mean that we just suddenly stop existing in every sense.

OK, there is a claim: that we become such.

But let's just try to make the argument that it's possible when we die, we stop existing in every sense. What would that entail? It would mean that we never existed at all, for our existence to be erased from time fully.

Well, that isn't what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that we exist at one time and do not exist at a later time. NOBODY claims that death implies we are 'erased from time fully'.

So, strike 1: you have introduced a straw man.

But we all know death isn't like that since we can remember people who died. Ok, so it's impossible for us to fully stop existing after we die, but what about partially?

Oops, wait. Can we remember things that no longer exist? Yes, of course. For example, I remember toys that have been completely destroyed. So this does NOT prove it impossible to stop existing.

Strike 2: making a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Let's imagine that we are the first number 1 in the following equation: 1-1=0. Well, it would seem at first glance that it is possible for us to become 0 since you can subtract 1 from us to get zero. But let's change this math equation into a word problem. Timmy had 1 apple, but after losing that apple, he then had none. In other words, 1-1=0. In this case the apple would be the first number 1, but it's not as though the apple just disappeared from existence when it was taken away from Timmy, no, it changed locations, but in the context of Timmy having any apples after losing one, he had none, just as we stop existing in this life before death, does not mean that we don't exist at all, it just means that our existence exists elsewhere, far enough away that it's no longer relevant to this life.

Argument from a bad analogy. How do you know the apple continues to exist? Maybe it was eaten? Maybe it was squashed. You give *one* possibility, but fail to show that possibility is a necessity.

Ok, so where is that location? Because if I can't imagine it being anywhere or know where it is, then it might as well not be anywhere at all. Well, in this case, that would be a 'less than non-applicable existence', a location with such little relevance to this life that you'll just never think of it, but just because you'll never think of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Shifting goals. I never say that simply because I cannot imagine where it is, it must not exist. But I also know that it *is* possible for things to go out of existence.

But hold up, all of this time, you've been expressing a type of non-existence that truly doesn't exist at all since you've been explaining what non-existence isn't, right?

No.

That is incorrect, because I can only explain what non-existence isn't because non-existence IS something, in that it has an applicable existence in explaining non-applicable existence, less than non-applicable existence, etc. Therefore, it exists in some way or another, therefore, existence always exists, even if it's not relevant to what you desire or are thinking about.

(Just to clarify, a 'Divisible Zero' is equal to a 'Non-Applicable Existence', and a 'Zero Undefined' is equal to a 'Less than Non-Applicable Existence'. It's important to mention them in math due to properly defining 'nothing' in every context)

Sorry, but there are too many basic logical errors to go further. maybe you should take a logic class? I'm sure a nearby philosophy department has one.

 

[Echogem222]

OK, there is a claim: that we become such.

Well, that isn't what is being claimed, is it? The claim is that we exist at one time and do not exist at a later time. NOBODY claims that death implies we are 'erased from time fully'.

So, strike 1: you have introduced a straw man.

A straw man was not what I was aiming for, I just wanted to make things clear starting out.

Oops, wait. Can we remember things that no longer exist? Yes, of course. For example, I remember toys that have been completely destroyed. So this does NOT prove it impossible to stop existing.

Toys that are destroyed still exist, they merely change form. Just as we exist as humans now, but when we die, our form changes, we do not stop existing.

Strike 2: making a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

I feel like you're jumping to conclusions way to fast, like you're just trying to prove me wrong for the sake of trying to prove me wrong, which is making me feel like this conversation is not worthwhile.

Argument from a bad analogy. How do you know the apple continues to exist? Maybe it was eaten? Maybe it was squashed. You give *one* possibility, but fail to show that possibility is a necessity.

Even if it was eaten, the apple still would exist, it would merely change form in a way we normally wouldn't identify as being an apple anymore, but it is still an apple.

Shifting goals. I never say that simply because I cannot imagine where it is, it must not exist. But I also know that it *is* possible for things to go out of existence.

You clearly don't think that way, but I have encountered people that do, so I'm sorry that I couldn't read your mind correctly. (Oh, and you know that it is possible for things to truly go out of existence in the way I'm saying is a logical contradiction? Care to prove that??)

No.

Sorry, but there are too many basic logical errors to go further. maybe you should take a logic class? I'm sure a nearby philosophy department has one.

Now I just feel like you're trolling me. Sorry, but I'm done talking with you.

 

[Polymath257]

A straw man was not what I was aiming for, I just wanted to make things clear starting out.


Toys that are destroyed still exist, they merely change form. Just as we exist as humans now, but when we die, our form changes, we do not stop existing.

No, the atoms in the toys remain, but the toys no longer exist. The sense of atoms continuing to exist is irrelevant to the existence of the toy.

In the same way, the atoms that make up our bodies do continue to exist. But that does NOT mean our bodies continue to exist. The continuation of existence has to do with how those atoms continue to interact strongly with each other and that simply stops happening.

I feel like you're jumping to conclusions way to fast, like you're just trying to prove me wrong for the sake of trying to prove me wrong, which is making me feel like this conversation is not worthwhile.

You are the one jumping to conclusions by asserting results that do not follow from your premises.

Even if it was eaten, the apple still would exist, it would merely change form in a way we normally wouldn't identify as being an apple anymore, but it is still an apple.

Not correct. The apple no longer exists. The *atoms* that the apples was made from still exist, but the apple does not.

Let's look at it another way. When you eat an apple, the atoms from that apple become part of your body. They are no longer a part of any apple.

You clearly don't think that way, but I have encountered people that do, so I'm sorry that I couldn't read your mind correctly. (Oh, and you know that it is possible for things to truly go out of existence in the way I'm saying is a logical contradiction? Care to prove that??)

I have given a number of examples. Your claims that an apple that has been eaten continues to exist is, shall we say, rather unconventional.

Now I just feel like you're trolling me. Sorry, but I'm done talking with you.

Sorry. But your lack of basic logical skills detracts from your goal of providing a proof. I would suggest learning some basic logic. Like I said, most philosophy departments have courses in such.

Logic turns out to be very difficult for a lot of people. We do not naturally think logically. Instead, we leap to conclusions that are often wrong. This is incredibly common. And it is one of the things that a basic philosophy course should help to fix. If not, a basic proof class in math will definitely do so.

 

[Echogem222]

Logic turns out to be very difficult for a lot of people. We do not naturally think logically. Instead, we leap to conclusions that are often wrong. This is incredibly common. And it is one of the things that a basic philosophy course should help to fix. If not, a basic proof class in math will definitely do so.

The type of logic you are using is very flawed, I've long since realized this and stopped using that type of logic. To use logic correctly, you need full awareness of the way things are. Take for example this phrase, "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire horse". Take this statement seriously and use your logic, then the result will be saying it's false given the size of a horse and a human don't match up, so it's impossible for a human to eat an entire horse. But if that statement was not meant to be taken literally, then your logical conclusion would then be false. Situations like this and other matters, where understanding the correct context change the value of things from a logical standpoint is why having awareness of the correct context is vital for correct logical understanding. But the issue is that all of reality could exist in a different context than what we think is true, so even something so basic as 1+1 may not actually equal 2 if reality exists in a different context, in fact, the equation 1+1=2 could be something akin to an optical illusion, something which makes sense when understanding it from a certain angle, but when you change perspectives, you realize why things aren't like that.

When someone uses logic but comes to the wrong conclusion, I call this type of logic False Conclusion Logic, or FC logic for short. Then for when someone uses logic correctly, I call True Conclusion Logic, or TC logic for short. But because it's very difficult to determine when someone is using FC or TC logic, most logical reasoning falls under what I call Gray Area logic (or Gray Zone logic), where statements like, "It's probably like this", "I'm not entirely sure", etc. are the norm. In the case of 1+1=2, this is something I would say is TC logic, due to not having any reason to doubt that being the case yet.

The importance of knowing about FC, TC, and Gray Area logic is how adaptable it allows people to be. If you think you understand logic correctly, then you'll be less prone to realizing when you're wrong, not realizing that someone might have more awareness about something than you do, point in case being your lack of understanding in understanding how the concept 'nothing' works, despite my attempts to explain it to you. You're so certain in your mind that you're right, you can't even be bothered to understand what I'm getting at, what context allows me to understand this situation correctly.

 

[Echogem222]

No, the atoms in the toys remain, but the toys no longer exist. The sense of atoms continuing to exist is irrelevant to the existence of the toy.

In the same way, the atoms that make up our bodies do continue to exist. But that does NOT mean our bodies continue to exist. The continuation of existence has to do with how those atoms continue to interact strongly with each other and that simply stops happening.

You are the one jumping to conclusions by asserting results that do not follow from your premises.

Not correct. The apple no longer exists. The *atoms* that the apples was made from still exist, but the apple does not.

Let's look at it another way. When you eat an apple, the atoms from that apple become part of your body. They are no longer a part of any apple.

I have given a number of examples. Your claims that an apple that has been eaten continues to exist is, shall we say, rather unconventional.

Sorry. But your lack of basic logical skills detracts from your goal of providing a proof. I would suggest learning some basic logic. Like I said, most philosophy departments have courses in such.

Logic turns out to be very difficult for a lot of people. We do not naturally think logically. Instead, we leap to conclusions that are often wrong. This is incredibly common. And it is one of the things that a basic philosophy course should help to fix. If not, a basic proof class in math will definitely do so.

If I gave you the question: Does nothing truly not exist?
Out of the following possible answers, which one would you choose and why?

A. Nothing does not exist

B. Nothing does exist

C. Unsure

D. Depends on the context

E. Nothing does and doesn't exist

+++

And to give you a short take on that question from a generally accepted philosophical standpoint:

[In philosophy, the concept of "nothing" can be quite complex and is often debated. One perspective is that "nothing" is simply the absence of existence or being. From this viewpoint, "nothing" does not exist as a thing or entity in itself; it is merely a term we use to describe the absence of something.

However, some philosophical traditions suggest that "nothing" can have a kind of existence or meaning, albeit a negative one. For example, in existentialist thought, "nothingness" is sometimes seen as a fundamental aspect of human existence, representing the void or uncertainty that individuals must confront in their lives.

Ultimately, whether "nothing" truly exists or not may depend on how one defines existence and the context in which the term is used.]

 

[Polymath257]

If I gave you the question: Does nothing truly not exist?

Define 'nothing' and define 'exist'. precision of language is required here.

Out of the following possible answers, which one would you choose and why?

A. Nothing does not exist

B. Nothing does exist

C. Unsure

D. Depends on the context

E. Nothing does and doesn't exist

D.
The answer depends critically on how you define the concepts. There is no 'thing' that is 'nothing'. In that sense nothing does not exist. But there can be cases where there is an absence of things and we call that state 'nothing'. In that sense, nothing does exist. But those are two *very* different notions of 'nothing' (as well as being slightly different notions of 'exist').

+++

And to give you a short take on that question from a generally accepted philosophical standpoint:

[In philosophy, the concept of "nothing" can be quite complex and is often debated. One perspective is that "nothing" is simply the absence of existence or being. From this viewpoint, "nothing" does not exist as a thing or entity in itself; it is merely a term we use to describe the absence of something.

My point exactly. I hadn't read this before writing what I did above. It seems we are in agreement.

However, some philosophical traditions suggest that "nothing" can have a kind of existence or meaning, albeit a negative one. For example, in existentialist thought, "nothingness" is sometimes seen as a fundamental aspect of human existence, representing the void or uncertainty that individuals must confront in their lives.

Yes, uncertainty is part of life. So what? That doesn't make it a 'void' or 'nothingness'. it just means we often cannot have certainty.

I don't see why it is fundamental in any way or why it needs to be 'confronted' as opposed to simply learning to live with it.

Ultimately, whether "nothing" truly exists or not may depend on how one defines existence and the context in which the term is used.]

As I said above.

 

[Polymath257]

The type of logic you are using is very flawed, I've long since realized this and stopped using that type of logic. To use logic correctly, you need full awareness of the way things are. Take for example this phrase, "I'm so hungry I could eat an entire horse". Take this statement seriously and use your logic, then the result will be saying it's false given the size of a horse and a human don't match up, so it's impossible for a human to eat an entire horse. But if that statement was not meant to be taken literally, then your logical conclusion would then be false.

No, it would not be. The statement made 'I could eat a whole house' was technically incorrect. More specifically, it was an exaggeration.

Situations like this and other matters, where understanding the correct context change the value of things from a logical standpoint is why having awareness of the correct context is vital for correct logical understanding.

Nope. The *logical* meaning might not be the *intended* meaning when emotional impact is the point.

But the issue is that all of reality could exist in a different context than what we think is true, so even something so basic as 1+1 may not actually equal 2 if reality exists in a different context, in fact, the equation 1+1=2 could be something akin to an optical illusion, something which makes sense when understanding it from a certain angle, but when you change perspectives, you realize why things aren't like that.

When someone uses logic but comes to the wrong conclusion, I call this type of logic False Conclusion Logic, or FC logic for short. Then for when someone uses logic correctly, I call True Conclusion Logic, or TC logic for short. But because it's very difficult to determine when someone is using FC or TC logic, most logical reasoning falls under what I call Gray Area logic (or Gray Zone logic), where statements like, "It's probably like this", "I'm not entirely sure", etc. are the norm. In the case of 1+1=2, this is something I would say is TC logic, due to not having any reason to doubt that being the case yet.

The importance of knowing about FC, TC, and Gray Area logic is how adaptable it allows people to be. If you think you understand logic correctly, then you'll be less prone to realizing when you're wrong, not realizing that someone might have more awareness about something than you do, point in case being your lack of understanding in understanding how the concept 'nothing' works, despite my attempts to explain it to you. You're so certain in your mind that you're right, you can't even be bothered to understand what I'm getting at, what context allows me to understand this situation correctly.

Well, frankly, that just seems like an excuse for sloppy thinking to me. Your FC Logic is simply making a mistake. Either your premises are incorrect or you made a mistake in your logical argument. But yes, it helps to learn how people make basic logical errors and learn to spot them and not to do them.

And no, it is usually quite easy to see when this happens, at least to those trained in picking up such mistakes (like mathematicians in their specialties).

 

[Echogem222]

No, it would not be. The statement made 'I could eat a whole house' was technically incorrect. More specifically, it was an exaggeration.

Nope. The *logical* meaning might not be the *intended* meaning when emotional impact is the point.


Well, frankly, that just seems like an excuse for sloppy thinking to me. Your FC Logic is simply making a mistake. Either your premises are incorrect or you made a mistake in your logical argument. But yes, it helps to learn how people make basic logical errors and learn to spot them and not to do them.

And no, it is usually quite easy to see when this happens, at least to those trained in picking up such mistakes (like mathematicians in their specialties).

Then I guess we agree to disagree because I'm going to end this conversation here.

 

[Heyo]

I didn't know about 'Null', thank you. But I already have a use for Zero Undefined, and it's for understanding what the word 'nothing' means in more depth. I'm someone who has developed my own philosophy I use to understand life, and it's important for me to know exactly what nothing is in every context it's used. I guess you could say I'm like a programmer who needs to know what every value does, so I can write a program correctly (but switch out program for philosophy).

I think you should give @Brickjectivity's post another thought.
You have invented a new term (Zero undefined), which already has a word that others understand. There is no need for a new term, if an existing one is already in use.
Except when you can show how your "zero undefined" differs from NULL. Can you?

 

[Echogem222]

I think you should @Brickjectivity's post another thought.
You have invented a new term (Zero undefined), which already has a word that others understand. There is no need for a new term, if an existing one is already in use.
Except when you can show how your "zero undefined" differs from NULL. Can you?

Null is used in programming, but Zero Undefined can be used outside of programming. It's quite straightforward.

 

[Heyo]

Null is used in programming, but Zero Undefined can be used outside of programming. It's quite straightforward.

Who says that null can't be used outside of programming? Zero Undefined isn't used anywhere, usage is not part of the definition.

 

[Echogem222]

Who says that null can't be used outside of programming? Zero Undefined isn't used anywhere, usage is not part of the definition.

Look, you can do what you want, but I'll keep using Zero Undefined because it makes sense to me to use it over using Null. To me, I see Null as being something to be used within programming, and Zero Undefined I understand to be used outside of programming, to be Null's equivalent outside of programming. If I say I'm using Null, it would mean that I'm doing something with programming, but if I say I'm using Zero Undefined it means I'm doing something outside of programming.