> I don't think zero is the null set. zero is the cardinality of the empty set > I observe zero. it cannot be observed directly at any static point in time,

> I don't think zero is the null set. zero is the cardinality of the empty set > I observe zero. it cannot be observed directly at any static point in time, but it can be observed as a dynamic process when some quantity goes down to empty and back up over time > In fact I'd be happy to write `>=0` or `>0` or `=0` any day instead of mangling the idea of zero representing 0 and zero representing something like `None`, `null` or any other tag of that sort. I don't think the natural world has anything like "nothing" it just has logical fallacies. N, W, R, etc. - r just well-known names for sets of numbers, nothing stops us from defining better or additional names for them (with self-describing names) We can discuss Empty type[1] vs Unit type[2], but I think it goes off-topic --- 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_type 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_type