A linguistic conundrum

[eutectique]

I asked my dog, what is 1 minus 1.
He replied nothing.

[AndyC_772]

where x is "nothing" and y is a fresh-baked cookie, and the math symbol ">" means "better than" (actually "greater than" where numbers are concerned, but we're dealing with cookies here). So this statement can then be represented by

   nothing > fresh-baked cookie

That's not how the statement is represented.

It actually means

fresh_baked_cookie = INT_MAX

ie. no comparison could ever result in ((thing > fresh_baked_cookie) == TRUE).

[Bobson]

I think the issue here lies in the fact that "nothing" can mean two things in English:  either "no other thing" or "the absence of anything" (i.e. "nothingness")

Absolutely right! Logical quantifier ¬∃ means there is no object matching the property.
So, meaning is "There is no object that is better than cookies".

[IanB]

True dat. Your rewording is clear and unambiguous.
But that's not the original sentence.

I didn't reword it. I explained what it says. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

[TimFox]

This problem is discussed in an interesting recent novel by Perceval Everett (Dr. No, Graywolf Press 2022).
The eponymous character is a math professor at Brown University, specializing in “nothing”.
The text includes this syllogism:
  Nothing is better than seeing God.
  Cold coffee is better than nothing.
  Therefore, cold coffee is better than seeing God.
The New York Times assigned a reviewer to this book who was apparently ignorant of mathematics and bereft of Google who objected to naming an important character “Eigen Vector”, since no one had ever heard of such a thing.

[CatalinaWOW]

Context is everything.  And why natural language translation has been such a difficult problem.  Why the current availability is so amazing.  And why even the best current translators make mistakes that seem incredible.

To someone who likes sweet snacks the sentence is clear.  There is no better sweet snack than a chocolate chip cookie.

To a mathematician or logic analyst it is an example of a poorly formed problem.

To someone on a diet it is also clear.  Eating nothing is better than snacking on a chocolate chip cooking.  The same for someone allergic to chocolate or other ingredient of the cookie.

The sentence in isolation does not provide all of the context required for correct interpretation.   Much humor is based on these conundrums.  The joke leads you to one interpretation and the punch line provides a surprising twist to an alternate interpretation or play on words.

[Analog Kid]

We are reading it differently because it admits two interpretations.

"No car is better than a BYD model 8" can be interpreted as
- There is no car in the universe which is better than a BYD model 8 so BYD model 8 is the best
- Not having a car is better than having a BYD model 8 because BYD model 8 is so bad

Thank you for acknowledging (and restating) the problem I pointed out.

[Analog Kid]

Commas are somewhat subjective. There are instances when adding or removing a comma, completely changes the meaning of a sentence, but sometimes adding one, just makes it easier to read. I admit, I do overuse commas, but I think it's the lesser evil.

Well, since we've got onto the subject of commas (thread drift 'Я' us), your sentence reminds me of another regular poster here, forget exactly who, who also overuses commas. They don't use them as punctuation but more as rhythmic "stops" in their sentences. I find that a bit annoying, as it really interrupts the syntactic flow of things. (In this case the comma after "removing a comma" is unnecessary. That other poster probably would also have put a comma after "There are instances"; he basically slices and dices his sentences into short breath-like phrases separated by commas, irrespective of whether they're really called for.)

But you're certainly not alone here, and you actually have very good company: this tendency seems to be more pronounced in British writers/speakers. And one writer who did this all the time was none other than Charles Dickens.

[Analog Kid]

True dat. Your rewording is clear and unambiguous.
But that's not the original sentence.

I didn't reword it. I explained what it says. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong.

The statement I wrote was "Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie".
You wrote "There is nothing better than a fresh-baked cookie.".
You're trying to tell me that isn't a rewording?*

Sheesh; talk about reading comprehension.

* As they say, close, but no cigar.

[soldar]

True dat. Your rewording is clear and unambiguous.
But that's not the original sentence.

I didn't reword it. I explained what it says. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong.

The statement I wrote was "Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie".
You wrote "There is nothing better than a fresh-baked cookie.".
You're trying to tell me that isn't a rewording?*

Sheesh; talk about reading comprehension.

* As they say, close, but no cigar.

This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have seen in quite a while. Just stop it. The both of you.

It's a rewording. It's an explanation. It's both. It's whatever. It's definitely not worth an argument. Sheesh.

[Analog Kid]

This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have seen in quite a while. Just stop it. The both of you.

It's a rewording. It's an explanation. It's both. It's whatever. It's definitely not worth an argument. Sheesh.

I don't take kindly--at all--to someone accusing me of poor reading comprehension when it's their mistake.
It was a rewording. Obviously.
Whether that means anything is another matter.

Double sheesh.

[pdenisowski]

They don't use them as punctuation but more as rhythmic "stops" in their sentences. I find that a bit annoying, as it really interrupts the syntactic flow of things.
...
he basically slices and dices his sentences into short breath-like phrases separated by commas, irrespective of whether they're really called for.

Can't comment on that particular poster without examples, but the general rule I learned for using commas is that they do correspond to verbal pauses. 

The easiest way (for me) to tell if a comma is necessary or not is to read the sentence aloud and pause for a full second at every comma and not to pause at all if no comma is present.

[SteveThackery]

Can't comment on that particular poster without examples, but the general rule I learned for using commas is that they do correspond to verbal pauses. 

I think the verbal pauses are the side effect rather than the main purpose. Commas have several roles, but principally they are used to delineate phrases and clauses. They also delineate items in a list. These usually coincide with pauses in speech, but the primary role of commas is grammatical; their role as a directive for the person reading the text out loud is supplementary.

[Andy Chee]

Proper punctuation and grammar is the difference between helping your uncle, Jack, off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

[NE666]

I do tend to add 'extras' myself, both for emphasis and maybe as part of a subconscious tendency to incorporate the breathing pause that would happen if the sentence were to be read alone.

The great thing is my ISP doesn't charge extra for transmitting them.

[soldar]

They don't use them as punctuation but more as rhythmic "stops" in their sentences. I find that a bit annoying, as it really interrupts the syntactic flow of things.
...
he basically slices and dices his sentences into short breath-like phrases separated by commas, irrespective of whether they're really called for.

Can't comment on that particular poster without examples, but the general rule I learned for using commas is that they do correspond to verbal pauses. 

The easiest way (for me) to tell if a comma is necessary or not is to read the sentence aloud and pause for a full second at every comma and not to pause at all if no comma is present.

I totally agree with this and it is what I do.

[soldar]

This has to be one of the silliest arguments I have seen in quite a while. Just stop it. The both of you.

It's a rewording. It's an explanation. It's both. It's whatever. It's definitely not worth an argument. Sheesh.

I don't take kindly--at all--to someone accusing me of poor reading comprehension when it's their mistake.
It was a rewording. Obviously.
Whether that means anything is another matter.

Double sheesh.

Lighten up Francis.

[TUMEMBER]

I think the issue here lies in the fact that "nothing" can mean two things in English:  either "no other thing" or "the absence of anything" (i.e. "nothingness")

(No other thing) is better than a cookie -> A cookie is better than every other thing
(The absence of anything) is better than a cookie -> It would be better not to have anything than to (be forced to) have a cookie  [a somewhat existential take on baked goods]

This is actually a great example of where the double negative in some languages is really helpful.  In Polish, "Nic nie jest lepsze niż ciasteczka" (nothing is not better than a cookie) can only mean "Cookies are better than everything else".  You can't say "Nic jest lepsze niż ciasteczka" (nothing is better than a cookie) - it's grammatically incorrect. 

To have the second meaning ("I would rather have nothing at all than have a cookie") in Polish you would have to say something like "Lepiej nie mieć nic niż mieć ciasteczko" (It is better to have nothing than to have a cookie) or just "Lepsze nic niż ciasteczko" (Better nothing than a cookie).  Super clear 

To nie tak, "lepszy wróbel w garści, niż gołąb na dachu"- a  "z ciasteczkiem" problem jest z gatunku problemów urojonych.
 "Nic nie jest lepsze niż świeże ciasteczko", oznacza iż świeże ciasteczko jest lepsze niż wczorajsze, przedwczorajsze czy to wyciągnięte własnie z lodówki.
 Ono-"ciasteczko świeże" jest bazą w zbiorze ciasteczek a nie wszystkiego w świecie realnym materialny i świecie emocji i uczuć.
A tak poza tym -Nigdy nie mów nigdy- to dopiero problem filozoficzny...
P.S.
Wpis po polsku najpierw, bo Ty jak mniemam dasz radę zrozumieć sens tego co napisane, wersja przetłumaczona przez Google Translate znów ulegnie "transformacji" , która według algorytmu ostatnio mającego ciągoty do "poetyki", napieprzy coś po swojemu całkowicie zmieniając sens. Polski język jest całkowicie za trudny dla tego silikonowego złomu. Nawet wróbla zmienia ten złom w ogólnego "bird", ehh szkoda nerwów.
Pozdrawiam z zaśnieżonej Polski, "genetycznego" Polaka. Andrzej.
By spełnić wymóg formalny także w esperantto forumowym.

It's not like "a sparrow in the hand is better than a pigeon on the roof"—and the cookie problem is one of the imaginary kind. "Nothing is better than a fresh cookie" means that a fresh cookie is better than yesterday's, the day before, or the one just pulled out of the fridge. It—"a fresh cookie"—is the basis for a collection of cookies, not everything in the real, material world and the world of emotions and feelings.
And besides, never say never—that's a philosophical problem...
P.S. Post in Polish first, because I assume you'll be able to understand the meaning of what's written. The Google Translate version will undergo another "transformation," which, according to an algorithm recently inclined to "poetics," will screw something up, completely changing the meaning. The Polish language is completely too difficult for this silicone junk.

Greetings from snowy Poland, a "genetic" Pole. Andrzej.

[temperance]

Nothing beats the number of meanings nothing has. And this is true in many languages.

It's nothing. / Nothing, it's really nothing.
There is nothing to it.
Some work for nothing.
Nothing to report.

And then we have:
Nothing combined with some body language.

Anyhow, there is nothing to it. It was all nothing but a pseudo intellectual trap. But some could care less than nothing.

[Analog Kid]

Nothing beats the number of meanings nothing has. And this is true in many languages.

It's nothing. / Nothing, it's really nothing.
There is nothing to it.
Some work for nothing.
Nothing to report.

Meh. Color me unimpressed.

Sure, there are variants and nuances for "nothing" (referring to English here). But it's not as if any of those variations mean anything much different from the basic meaning, which is some type of zero/null/absence/void. So they all mean more or less the same thing.

It's more like the 39 or however many words the Inuit have for snow: while there are differences, none of them mean anything opposite like "sandy beach on a warm summer day".

[TimFox]

Ex nihil, nihil.

[Analog Kid]

Ex nihil, nihil.

"Out of nothing, nothing comes."
Isn't that just a ... tautology?

So much of that ancient Greek and Roman philosophy strikes me as extremely trivial and simpleminded. "Ice cream is good."

[TUMEMBER]

Ex nihil, nihil.

And everything is in between... from dust you came and to dust you shall return...
Before there was nothing and before there will be nothing - everything is our entire life and consciousness/

[soldar]

Ex nihil, nihil.

"Out of nothing, nothing comes."
Isn't that just a ... tautology?

So much of that ancient Greek and Roman philosophy strikes me as extremely trivial and simpleminded. "Ice cream is good."

Well, many centuries later and we still do not understand or know with certainty how the Universe was formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_materia

Creatio ex materia is the notion that the universe was formed out of eternal, pre-existing matter. This is in contrast to the notion of creatio ex nihilo, where the universe is created out of nothing. The idea of creatio ex materia is found in ancient near eastern cosmology, early Greek cosmology such as is in the works of Homer and Hesiod,[1] and across the board in ancient Greek philosophy.[2] It was also held by a few early Christians, although creatio ex nihilo was the dominant concept among such writers. After the King Follet discourse, creatio ex materia came to be accepted in Mormonism.[3]

Greek philosophers came to widely frame the notion of creatio ex materia with the philosophical dictum "nothing comes from nothing" (Greek: οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit). Although it is not clear if the dictum goes back to Parmenides (5th century BC) or the Milesian philosophers,[4] a more common version of the expression was coined by Lucretius, who stated in his De rerum natura that "nothing can be created out of nothing".[5]

Alternatives to creatio ex materia include creatio ex nihilo ("creation from nothing"); creatio ex deo ("creation from God"), referring to a derivation of the cosmos from the substance of God either partially (in panentheism) or completely (in pandeism), and creatio continua (ongoing divine creation).[6][7]
Greek philosophy

Greek philosophers widely accepted the notion that creation acted on eternally existing, uncreated matter.[2] Parmenides' articulation of the dictum that "nothing comes from nothing" is first attested in Aristotle's Physics:[8]

    τί δ᾽ ἄν μιν καὶ χρέος ὦρσεν ὕστερον ἢ πρόσθεν, τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀρξάμενον, φῦν; οὕτως ἢ πάμπαν πελέναι χρεών ἐστιν ἢ οὐχί.

In English translation:[9]

     Yet why would it be created later rather than sooner, if it came from nothing; so, it must either be created altogether or not [created at all].

[Analog Kid]

... and my guess®™ is that we'll never really know.
Sometimes I think these lines of thought are really for people with too much time on their hands.
As I grow older all that matters less and less to me.