I see 11s in Arno's last entry.

Well, I would not say, that my attempt of the ten is clear, if you don’t know, that it is a ten. I did know that before. But eleven? The idea behind of it is, that nothing remains nothing. The arrow above nothing means "There is nothing.", while the figure zero means "I am something, but I mean nothing." I always was in the opinion, that the zero is the most fascinating number. In nature nothing does not exist. Otherwise it would be a violation of the uncertainty principle. The maximum of nothing is "almost nothing". Nothing is bursting the human mind in the same way as infinity.

In this way (my contribution) I could describe numbers on an endless number line. All zeros after the ten would not have an arrow above.

Fascinating, Arno. Quantum physics meets typography. Thank you for teaching me something about nothing ;) Read this with interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Would that be why 'singularity' is called that instead of, say, 'nothingness'?

Nice one, Riccardo!

Hi - my first one too :)

@ Riccardo

I think the zero should over- and undershoot a bit.

@ Riccardo

Well, all you had to do is to cut a bit of the one at its buttom and drag it down a bit.

@ ihoff

Would that be why 'singularity' is called that instead of, say, 'nothingness'?

I just saw your question. I am not a physicist, but singularities (in black holes with a wide event horizon) seem to be very stable in contradiction to virtual particles in the vacuum. So the gravitation field gives evidence of the existence of something. On the other side you could ask, how real those things are, that we can’t see, and whether the universe exists, if nobody is there, who observes it. (Not only singularities, but everything, that is only for moments in our consciousness or that is pure theory. This consideration gives room for speculations about the possibility of a simulation of that, which we call reality, because the simulation only had to take into account the content of your or my consciousness – even not the contents of the consciousness of all humans, because every human individual only sees cuttings of some other individuals – temporarily. Otherwise the computer [in a wide sense of that term], which would be required for the simulation, would require more interactions between particles in every moment, than particles exist in the universe.) That’s the main reason, for which I hope, that the mankind survives or becomes replaced by another terrestrial species in the course of the biologic evolution or the evolution of a synthetical intelligence, that was developed by a biologic terrestrial species. There are millions of people, who believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, although it is absolutely unevident, that it exists. (I only believe in nature, but not in Gods or substitutes of Gods. On the other side zero or infinity make it almost impossible, to believe in nothing.) But if we are the only creatures in universe, our self destruction would eliminate the only observer of the universe. And then the universe would be the most conceivable waste of beauty.

@ Chris

As I said, I am not a physicist, but in the theory (probably there is more than one theory), there is a singularity in every black hole. If Hawking is right, then black holes irradiate and loose energy/mass. As smaller the hole, as more energy/mass it looses through emission. And in the end it explodes. But when it explodes, its mass is almost zero. That is odd, because if you believe in the big bang, it has started with a singularity (with the mass of the universe). With regard to the time and the stability the big bang singularity is probably an exception from our point of view, because there was nothing outside that singularity – the big bang singularity was the only possible point of view – and therefore there was nobody, who was able to compare the lifetime of that singularity with any processes. There was no relation to anything, because the big bang singularity was everything. You could not say, how long the big bang singularity has existed, before it has exploded.

However, the zero is fascinating. (There is an ingenious idea about full and empty zeros in the beginning of the book Picnic at the Way Side by the brothers Strugatzki. Really ingenious.

There is a book with short stories about singularities, which I likewise can recommend, but I don’t know, if it was translated into English: Singularities by Peter Schattschneider.)

I will look for the book in English! Thanks, Arno!

Something somewhere between G.Spencer-Brown’s “Laws of Form” and Michael Polanyi’s “The Tacit Dimension”?

Hmmm, I guess I have always thought singularities or at least the "big" one had consumed all energy and mass, therefore there was none left outside of it and that the only "force" remaining was its own gravitation which was relentless and would continue beyond ultimate mass causing ultimate explosion? Then again, I am old, forgetful, naive, a romantic, and definitely NOT a physicist :-)

Thought I would get a head start on next year.

Ten.
and im late!

Ihoff
Keady
Stickley

YES!

While the last Type Battle listed is still #39 (http://typophile.com/typebattles), I propose to extend this one for another year:

I am a newbie :) and this is my first battle :)Even if it is too late, one year :) I did it..

One’s always better off to an early start ;-)

Four years. It could become a tradition! ;-)

Now we are teen