Zero signifies absence or an amount of no magnitude and allegedly
exemplifies one of humanity’s most splendid insights. Nonetheless, it is
a questionable number. Why did algebra embrace zero and dismiss infinity
despite representing symmetric and complementary concepts? Why is zero
exceptional in arithmetic? Is zero a “real” point? Has it a
geometrical meaning? Is zero naturalistic? Digit 0 is unnecessary in
positional notation (e.g., bijective numeration). The uniform
distribution is unreachable, transmitting nill bits of information is
impossible, and communication is never error-free. Zero is elusive in
thermodynam-ics, quantum field theory, and cosmology. A minimal
fundamental extent is plausible but hard to accept because of our
acquaintance with zero. Mathematical zeroes are semantically void (e.g.,
empty set, empty sum, zero vector, zero function, unknot). Because
“division by zero” and “iden-tically zero” are uncomputable, we
advocate for the nonzero algebraic numbers to build new physics that
reflects nature’s countable character. In a linear scale, we must handle
zero as the smallest possible nonzero rational or the limit of an
asymptotically vanishing sequence of rationals. Zero, as such, is a
logarithmic scale’s pointer to a being’s property via log(1)). The
exponential function, which decodes the encoded data back to the linear
scale, is crucial to understanding the Lie algebra-group correspondence
, the Laplace transform, linear fractional transformations, and the
notion of conformality. Ultimately, we define a “coding space” as a
doubly conformal transformation realm of zero-fleeing hyperbolic
geometry that keeps universal relationships of structure and scale.