• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Why is it more comfortable to say zero apples than zero apple and it's more easier on the tongue to say 1 apple and many apples? Adding an "s" at the end of nouns is done to indicate plurality - multiplicity - and yet when we refer to nothing, zero, it's more natural to use the plural e.g. zero men is preferred over zero man, zero dogs feels more natural than zero dog. What gives?
  • Nils Loc
    1.3k
    Some nouns can be used indifferently as mass or count nouns, e.g., three cabbages or three heads of cabbage; three ropes or three lengths of rope. Some have different senses as mass and count nouns: paper is a mass noun as a material (three reams of paper, one sheet of paper), but a count noun as a unit of writing ("the students passed in their papers"). — Wikipedia: Mass Noun

    There was zero toilet paper in the Philosophy Salon's water closet.

    When essays were written on the toilet paper they became toilet papers, such that at any time there could also be zero toilet papers in the Philosophy Salon's water closet.
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    The article is interesting in how nouns are used to group things or not. But the matter of being singular or not in distinction to the zero is a counting thing as well. We use zeroes to multiply a set of things.
    I think the first negative number of -1 plays a part. Zero is excluded from the identity operation.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.