On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Terren,
Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical
realities being computed. There is no Platonia
You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in
my theory.
Comp needs only the arithmetical
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe
where addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old.
So you assume the usual physical universe? Your comp space (which I
have still no clue at all of it consists)
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:47, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of
'Realization' deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with
serious insights on how to directly experience reality as it
actually is such as:
1. The fundamental
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course
theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can
appear, is a
On 13 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,
Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno:
... from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and
will follow the path with the greater measure.
This looks like some form of a self-selection!?
OK. Like in the
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2014 7:17 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
As you've explained it above your
On 13 Jan 2014, at 22:27, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't
register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time
On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
William,
No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same
definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course
theories aren't reality.
In any case the quantum vacuum, out of
On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't
offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the
complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they
are continually offering theories of their
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
So you assume:
0. non-existence cannot exist.
That is too
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:42, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist.
This sounds like St Anselm's ontological argument put into a nutshell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
You are
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and concepts of the theory.
Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms
2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
to criticize...
The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning...
your
Bruno,
Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT
infinite. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the
quantum vacuum. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different
TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. The set is very
Bruno,
Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was
wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's
theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml,
there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book.
Terren
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Thanks Terren,
However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date.
I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and
almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has
been extensively revised in the book and in my posts
All,
My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist',
answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather
than nothing exist?'
The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist
instead of something else?' Why is our
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT
infinite.
In what real world?
In all real worlds?
To define not finite, you need second order logic.
To assume *one* finite reality is close to a blaspheme (grin) in
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
possible mathematical universe
Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most
basic axioms and
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that
she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long
ago...
She was not really wrong. She alluded to the equations that Newton
provided. She was
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality
but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time
thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others.
On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
A good question, that's why I've
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single
state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous
non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all
biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of
Jason,
Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr.
High School?
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his
Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are
Dear Bruno,
I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of
a mind. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever
complete, it still have finite subsets that are indistinguishable from
finite minds. The eternal running of the UD is such a eternal process.
Liz,
Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited.
That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere
is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious.
As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a
mass-energy
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what
you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of
those definitions will be your answer... It's
Bruno,
'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality
itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means
something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have
individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is
Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of
Consciousnesshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI
A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes
similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world
as experience rather than “objective”. What is
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Thanks Terren,
However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date.
I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and
almost everything there in the way of the topics germane
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.
That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.
It is conceivable there is more than one
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there
is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
minds of biological organisms.
OK, but is the world you and I are familiar
On 1/14/2014 8:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in
at this
moment given that we only know the macrostate
We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for
example, even contain
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and
I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made
public.
So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you
On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that
idea I wonder?
:-)
There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by
definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is
On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that
things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum
from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We
Brent,
Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from
computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't
believe you'd even ask such a dumb question
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent
On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state
of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that
may be needs to be further clarified.
So let me get this right. You have a
On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you
can judge...
I generally consider that *dualism* has too many basic concepts (as Stephen
will tell you :)
And anyone who understands their own ideas should
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Edgar,
1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious?
2. Do you believe replacing
On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
You don't consider Newton's Law of Gravitation to be a formal theory? How
much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and
On 15 January 2014 08:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of
something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of
argument, at least when made public.
On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist',
answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather
than nothing exist?'
Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist.
On 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact
description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically
possible
On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at
the quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type
device
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's
being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so
let's try again.
Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time symmetry
of fundamental physics could account for the results
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'.
On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
John,
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this
question...
Actually to answer your
On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from
computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I
explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical.
On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing,
and have zero consciousness.
Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I
can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...
Teehee.
Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.
This is fun, in a
Brent:
thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words!
I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he
seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s)
by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him
indeed).
I loved (and tried
On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries
and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of
the totality.
I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by
one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your
question.
You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no
basis in reality as if they were true. When we study
Liz,
That is the explanation
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
All,
My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist',
answers the first fundamental
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence,
Liz,
Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in
the 19th century!
I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the
moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other
things that are real as well - but not
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we
are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not
just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one
by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer
your question.
You are letting your imagination run wild here
Liz,
It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first place.
Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God
created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY the same theory as
the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are
starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me
to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the
intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or -
of
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
On
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
:-)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one
by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and
OK.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note
I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Send me a
So, all is explained. No wonder he doesn't get special relativity, with
its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light!
I can almost picture his response...
Albert,
There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When
there are let me know, and
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
finding a life partner.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
OK.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5,
On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...
Lighten up and smile!
Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that
could replace biological neurons one by one.
But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons
having the same
LIz,
Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972
thismind...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
There are
Brent,
I didn't say that...
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Freq,
Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
Freq,
But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
You?
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
finding a life partner.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5,
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
healthy
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who
could be?
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a
On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be
Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who
could be?
Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi
On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
LIz,
Good one! Thanks for the chuckles!
Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've
provided.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about how to make an
AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing
excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30:
*Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true
So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence? Why?
In any case, Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist is
really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from
it. While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume
them
You won't get a sensible answer. Edgar is just playing with words.
He might as well have said We're here because we're here because we're
here because we're here.
On 15 January 2014 18:20, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote:
So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence?
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
21st century deserves to be shot.
So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be
bullet-proof.
On 15 January 2014 15:26,
On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.
Interleaving.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I agree with what you wrote to
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an
ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid
in Jr. High School?
By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does
in his
90 matches
Mail list logo
