On Wed Jun 3 0:39 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be sent:
Hi Kim, Hi Marty and others,
So it is perhaps time to do some math.
It is
Obviously this is a not a course in math, but it is an explanation
from scratch of the seven step of the universal dovetailer argument.
It is a
On 02 Jun 2009, at 22:00, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
A set is entirely defined by its elements. Put in another way, we
will
say that two sets are equal if they have the same elements.
Exercise 6. Let S be the set {0, 1, 45} and let M be the set
described
by {45,
On 02 Jun 2009, at 21:41, James Rose wrote:
What is the definition of a machine? I have a sense that there
is an intuitive one but not an explicit one, appropriate to the
discussions here.
It is part of the goal of the seven step thread to define what is a
mathematical machine.
Part
Excellent!
Kim, are you OK with Marty's answers?
Does someone have a (non philosophical) problem?
I will be busy right now (9h22 am). This afternoon I will send the
next seven exercises.
Bruno
On 02 Jun 2009, at 21:57, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
I appreciate the simplicity of the
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
{0, 1, 2, 3, ...}.
Let N be the biggest
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it by the infinite quasi exhaustion by
{0, 1, 2, 3,
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you
Quentin Anciaux kirjoitti:
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
...
How do you know that there is no biggest number?
You just did.
You shown that by assuming there is one it entails a contradiction.
Have you examined all
the natural numbers?
No, that's what demonstration
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:16 +0200
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
From: allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal
I don't know if Bruno is about to answer this in messages I haven't
checked yet but one can visualize the square root of 2. If you draw a
square one meter by one meter, then the length of the diagonal is the
square root of 2 meters. It is approximately 1.4. What's relevant to
Bruno's
How do you know that there is no biggest number? Have you examined all
the natural numbers? How do you prove that there is no biggest number?
In my opinion those are excellent questions. I will attempt to answer
them. The intended audience of my answer is everyone, so please forgive
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you agree we can describe it
2009/6/3 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus tor...@dsv.su.se:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Bruno Marchal skrev:
4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
hope you
Very good answer, Kim,
Just a few comments. and then the sequel.
Exercice 4: does the real number square-root(2) belongs to {0, 1, 2,
3, ...}?
No idea what square-root(2) means. When I said I was innumerate I
wasn't kidding! I could of course look
it up or ask my mathematics teacher
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Do you believe if we create a computer in this physical
universe that it could be made conscious,
But a computer is never conscious, nor is a brain. Only a person is
conscious, and a computer or a brain can only make it
Thank you very much. I realized I made some false statements as well.
It seems likely that reliance on (not P - Q and not Q) - P being a
tautology is the easiest proof of there being no largest natural number.
Brent Meeker wrote:
Brian Tenneson wrote:
How do you know that
Bruno,
I stopped half-way through because I'm not at all sure of my answers
and would like to have them confirmed or corrected, if necessary, rather than
go on giving wrong answers. marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 10:11:41AM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
The English term for this is proof by contradiction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
Funnily enough, we were taught to call this by the latin phrase
reductio ad absurdum. I think my maths prof came from
19 matches
Mail list logo
