A linguistic conundrum

[Analog Kid]

OK, since it's what they call a "slow news day", I'm gonna post this.
I wrote this many a year ago and, if I remember correctly, posted it to Facebook (back when I was a member; no longer one).

A Linguistic Conundrum?

Either this is an intriguing linguistic problem, or I'm an idiot: you decide. (Hey, wait ...)
The problem arose when I spotted something at work, a shopping bag on which was inscribed

   Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie

Unremarkable, you say: so what? But after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that there is a definite problem with this seemingly simple declarative statement. It means that fresh-baked cookies are the best, right? Well, maybe not.

Now intuitively, I'm going to say that all of us are going to interpret this statement exactly as it was intended: that there's nothing more tasty, more satisfying than a fresh-baked cookie. However, notice that what I just wrote was a slight rewording of the original. Let's look at the original as stated. If we analyze it, we see a simple statement in the form

   x > y

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

which literally means that nothing (since x = 0) is greater than--better than--a fresh-baked cookie, or to restate it, that a fresh-baked cookie is WORSE than nothing. Meaning that we'd be better off with nothing rather than a fresh-baked cookie. Which is exactly the opposite of the intended meaning,the meaning that anyone would take from the original statement.

Numerically, this means that "fresh-baked cookie" must be negative, since it's less than zero, right?

WTF? How does that work? We believe something that is the exact opposite of what was stated, literally speaking. What kind of neuro-linguistic programming is involved here?

What would Chomsky say? (Perhaps "you're an idiot"? ...)

OK, so now you can start tearing this to shreds. Have fun with it.

[negativ3]

"Better" does not equal "greater than".
Fresh baked cookie equals +infinity.
Nothing can be greater.

[Analog Kid]

"Better" does not equal "greater than".
Fresh baked cookie equals +infinity.
Nothing can be greater.

Well, think about that last sentence:
"Nothing can be greater."

Which means "not anything can be greater".
Or does it? Could it, literally, mean "nothing (in other words, zero) can be greater"?
(Just substitute "zero" for "nothing".)

Again, I'm looking at the literal meaning of the words here.

[IanB]

Human language doesn't follow the rules of strict mathematical logic, so you are just playing games with words to no effect.

However, a moment of insight will tell you that the sentence reads, "There is nothing better than a fresh-baked cookie."

Now, you can apply you logical arguments to that. Mathematically, we have: "the set of everything that is better than a fresh-baked cookie is the empty set".

[Andy Chee]

Either this is an intriguing linguistic problem, or I'm an idiot: you decide. (Hey, wait ...)
The problem arose when I spotted something at work, a shopping bag on which was inscribed

   Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie

Unremarkable, you say: so what? But after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that there is a definite problem with this seemingly simple declarative statement. It means that fresh-baked cookies are the best, right? Well, maybe not.

To test the statement thoroughly, one would have to; compare sex to fresh-baked cookies, compare watching sport to fresh-baked cookies, compare landing on Mars to fresh-baked cookies, compare pushing out a kidney stone to fresh-baked cookies, compare listening to your neighbor play drums to fresh-baked cookies, compare playing Xbox to fresh-baked cookies, ....... ad infinitum.

Not a linguistic problem per se, rather an interpretive one.  Most people would read it for what it is, marketing rhetoric hyperbole, not literal fact.

[Analog Kid]

However, a moment of insight will tell you that the sentence reads, "There is nothing better than a fresh-baked cookie."

Now, you can apply you logical arguments to that. Mathematically, we have: "the set of everything that is better than a fresh-baked cookie is the empty set".

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

[negativ3]

"Better" does not equal "greater than".
Fresh baked cookie equals +infinity.
Nothing can be greater.

Well, think about that last sentence:
"Nothing can be greater."

Which means "not anything can be greater".
Or does it? Could it, literally, mean "nothing (in other words, zero) can be greater"?
(Just substitute "zero" for "nothing".)

Again, I'm looking at the literal meaning of the words here.

No thing.
But is zero a thing anyway?

[Analog Kid]

But is zero a thing anyway?

Oh god.
Please don't go there!

[JohanH]

Language is a fluid thing. It's obviously short for "nothing else is better than ...", or better, "not everything else is better than...".

So it doesn't imply that "0 > ∞", but rather "∞ > x".

That said, there are a few things in the English language that annoys me. I.e. when you say "near-miss accident". I know "near" means kind of "nearby" and not "almost", but it still sounds so odd.

Another thing that sounds weird to me is to say that "something or someone is second to none". To my Swedish language ears, this sounds like you almost hit the bottom, none or nothing, and have crawled up to the second-worst place (i.e. last). I know it means the opposite, that you are "not second, because there is no-one better, thus you are the first".

[negativ3]

But is zero a thing anyway?

Oh god.
Please don't go there!

Can't go to now-here.

[iMo]

   Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie

It says, imho, that "not having a fresh-baked cookie is better than to have some" (provided you usually eat them)..
What is basically true (when you do care about your body fat volume).. 

[soldar]

"Nothing" is a contraction of "no thing".

No thing is better than a fresh-baked cookie.

[JohanH]

"Nothing" is a contraction of "no thing".

No thing is better than a fresh-baked cookie.

But that means exactly the same and doesn't change the original problem!

"No thing" = 0

"0 > 🍪"

I know, I know...

[soldar]

"Nothing" is a contraction of "no thing".

No thing is better than a fresh-baked cookie.

But that means exactly the same and doesn't change the original problem!

"No thing" = 0

"0 > 🍪"

I know, I know...

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

[magic]

Unremarkable, you say: so what? But after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that there is a definite problem with this seemingly simple declarative statement. It means that fresh-baked cookies are the best, right? Well, maybe not.

Maybe not? Certainly not.

Being better is not a total order. You can't say that nothing is better than cookies so cookies are the best.
Are cookies better than resistors? Jackhammers?

[rteodor]

Emphasis in the spoken language is sometimes hard to translate in the written language. An unskilled writer leaves it to the reader to assume.

        Nothing is better than a cookie != Nothing is better than a cookie.


In my native language, the intended meaning would be said like:

        Nothing isn't better than a fresh baked cookie.

[NE666]

But is zero a thing anyway?

Oh god.
Please don't go there!

I think you have to, if you really want to analyse it in the way that you are.

As others have said, "nothing" is a contraction of "no thing". The statement thus posits that there's no material item ("thing") that you could present me with which would be better than a cookie. Zero, in this context, would imply that you present no item which is not the condition being described or tested.

[iMo]

For non-native speakers (like me), there might be a difference between “to have a cookie” (possessing a cookie) and “to have a cookie” (eating a cookie). So that makes it even more complex (like grammar vs. context vs. logic)..

[dave j]

In a similar vein, there's an infamous advertising slogan for a pain killer from 1955: "Nothing acts faster than Anadin".

Many commedians made a joke of the ambiguity but the company must have thought it was a strong slogan - they were still using it in TV ads in the 1970s.

[Zero999]

OK, since it's what they call a "slow news day", I'm gonna post this.
I wrote this many a year ago and, if I remember correctly, posted it to Facebook (back when I was a member; no longer one).

A Linguistic Conundrum?

Either this is an intriguing linguistic problem, or I'm an idiot: you decide. (Hey, wait ...)
The problem arose when I spotted something at work, a shopping bag on which was inscribed

   Nothing is Better than a Fresh-Baked Cookie

Unremarkable, you say: so what? But after thinking about this for a while, it occurred to me that there is a definite problem with this seemingly simple declarative statement. It means that fresh-baked cookies are the best, right? Well, maybe not.

Now intuitively, I'm going to say that all of us are going to interpret this statement exactly as it was intended: that there's nothing more tasty, more satisfying than a fresh-baked cookie. However, notice that what I just wrote was a slight rewording of the original. Let's look at the original as stated. If we analyze it, we see a simple statement in the form

   x > y

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

which literally means that nothing (since x = 0) is greater than--better than--a fresh-baked cookie, or to restate it, that a fresh-baked cookie is WORSE than nothing. Meaning that we'd be better off with nothing rather than a fresh-baked cookie. Which is exactly the opposite of the intended meaning,the meaning that anyone would take from the original statement.

Numerically, this means that "fresh-baked cookie" must be negative, since it's less than zero, right?

WTF? How does that work? We believe something that is the exact opposite of what was stated, literally speaking. What kind of neuro-linguistic programming is involved here?

What would Chomsky say? (Perhaps "you're an idiot"? ...)

OK, so now you can start tearing this to shreds. Have fun with it.

It's badly written ( the first letter of each word, shouldn't be capitalised), non-standard English. There is nothing better, than a freshly baked cookie.

[SteveThackery]

There is nothing better, than a freshly baked cookie.

There is nothing worse than a surplus comma. 😀

[pdenisowski]

There is nothing worse than a surplus comma. 😀

Avoid using commas, where they are not necessary 

[pdenisowski]

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 

[Zero999]

There is nothing better, than a freshly baked cookie.

There is nothing worse than a surplus comma. 😀

Yes, one could argue a comma isn't needed, but at least it now makes sense.

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.

[SteveThackery]