Scripsit illud Disaster <disaster@disfanfic.NOSPAM.net>:
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATField_adsgohere@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illud Disaster <disaster@disfanfic.NOSPAM.net>:
> > > Errors? Their are fewer errors in destroying something that doesn't exist
> > > then in trying to use it you mental case!
> >
> > No. After destroying what didn't exist there are -1 of them. -1 is not
> > zero, so after that, it does exist. It can only be removed by creating
> > it - if you destroy it, you've got -2 of them which is an even worse
> > inconsistence. The simplest way ou is destroying *all* of them, because
> > this would mean destroying -1 respective -2 of them, and after that there
> > are none (0) left. So one gets into major trouble when destroying what
> > doesn't exist.
> >
> > Using it, however, does just result in noting. It's useless - but it
> > does not create such inconsistencies. It's completely harmless.
> 
> Actually as we are using an object with a mass greater then 0 or -1 then
> we can not refer to the situation using the process you described above.
> You can never have -1 or -2 of something regardless of intent. The only
> way you could conceive of -1 or -2 is if you compare one time frame to
> another in which you had 2 of them before and now you have 0. This would
> generate a -2 difference. Which is just as good as saying you have 0 of
> them. Hence the destruction of nothing gives you the same result as the
> destruction of something.

There's a difference between destroying nothing (which subtracts 0 of
the number, having no effect at all) and destroying something that doesn't
exist. Since it is "something", it decreases the count when destroyed.

Good that this scenario cannot occur. You won't find anything that
doesn't exist, therefore you cannot destroy it. It's always ensured that
everything which has been created can only be destroyed once.  At least,
if the universe is bug-free.

> However the use of something that doesn't exist is much less then the
> use of something that would have been there!

ACK.

> Hence, it is more useless to try and use something that isn't there then
> it is to destroy it.

You can "try to use something that doesn't exist", but you cannot
"destroy something that doesn't exist". If you add the word "to try",
both are exactly at the same level of uselessness: you'd have to try
forever, and there's nothing more useless than the infinite loop, which
Windows XP can calculate in 30 minutes (Win95 did it in three seconds).
Linux is still unable to finish the endless loop, unless you help by
installing bad memory or a bad processor, so that the endless loop gets
the chance to crash. Deep Thought refused to calculate the endless
loop since he knew it's just a stability and reliability measure, not
more.

-- 
[mpg123d] Just playing: .../MP3/hayashibara/iravati/12 Thirty.mp3

Nigecha dame da. Nigecha dame da. Nigecha dame da. Nigecha dame da...
     [Shinji in Neon Genesis Evangelion - english: "I mustn't run away"]