Quentin, about those darn numbers:

Although I am not FOR their omnipotence/science and
have some reservations - as I explained partially - 
I have a different notion HOW "a number" can "mean"
Older members who still went to libraries (before the
computer only generation <G>) may remember the still
existing "decimal" system to organize library-stuff
(and anything else). It had basic topics in a decimal
form, where the fractional part identified the detail,
then with additions in (-), /, :, [-], and
+,-,_,=,etc. you name it, ALL connotations, details,
relations and peculiarities could be specified and
included into THAT "NUMBER" (sometimes pretty long). 
This was a primitive way and I am sure the
number-lover members of this list know better, but for
starters this could be a hint how numbers can 'mean'

Sorry to support the enemy

John M

--- Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi,
> Le Lundi 13 Mars 2006 14:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
> �crit�:
> > Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > > But whatever you do with numbers can be encoding
> with numbers, as such
> > > assuming platonic existence, numbers are the
> only requirements, because
> > > operation on them, discourse about them,
> description on them are numbers
> > > too.
> >
> > Hmm. You can hardly claim that the meaning is
> intrinsic to the number.
> > Does "2" mean "red", "mammal", "male" or what ? It
> could be mean
> > anything in a given coding scheme.
> I agree, but the coding scheme is also a number.
> The coding scheme is the instruction set of a turing
> machine, which is also a 
> number... I'm stuck ;)
> Quentin

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to