Hi Russell: At 07:48 PM 10/8/2005, you wrote:

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 12:26:45PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > For each natural number n there should be countably infinite [is, is > not] pairs of descriptions of lengths [n, countably infinite]. There > are countably infinite n's. There are also countably infinite [is, > is not] pairs of descriptions of lengths [countably infinite, > countably infinite]. >I don't think this is right, but I could be grasping the wrong end of the stick. I think of your definition division as the division of an infinite length symbol string into a finite head, and a countably infinite long tail.

Ok

If true, then there are A^n heads of length n, and c (=A^\aleph_0) tails. Therefore, there are c pairs of descriptions.

`Ok, if you mean that there are c pairs of descriptions in which one`

`of the pairs is of length n etc. etc. I find this [I think] even`

`more satisfying than my above. However, I see the basic result as`

`being the same i.e. the number of descriptions of any particular type`

`is always c so there is no preponderance of any type of description.`

Yours

`Hal Ruhl`