John ,

>
> Bruno:
>
> Aren't you fall back in your 2nd par at the end into
> an 'idem per idem' explanation?
> I asked (from Georges) a way to GET AWAY from the
> number-essence or ID when we assign (con)ceptual
> meanings to ideas/things "you people" call NUMBERS
> ONLY. You return to a number-based activity in your
> question.
>
> Who is to "think" of the "English version of Gone with
> the wind" when looking at an 'arbitrary big' number?


Anyone comfortably installed in Plato Heaven, having eternity of time  
to waste, + an infinite suppy of coffee cups (or tea).

John I could have take a finite string with no meaning at all. Instead  
of "Gone with the wind" I could have taken  
"azertyuiop^$qsdfghjklmù£wxcvbn,;:=>AWQZSXTH.M¨%/? 
NYUIOPRBFZAAyuiop^$qsdfghjklmù" instead, or in base 10, *any* number:  
like 666,666,666,666,666,666,666,666,666,667.
My point was not even philosophical, although perhaps I was implicitly  
trying to suggest that occurrences of strings in other strings have no  
much big meaning with respect to the question we are talking about. My  
point was just: no need to take infinite decimal for those occurences  
to occur with probability near 1, just *big* numbers are enough.



> The more important part is:  and WHY?


The problem, of course is that big numbers contains "gone with the  
wind" but also all version with all sort of orthographical errors, etc.  
We need an exemplar of "gone with the wind" to compare it with the  
version occurring in the big numbers, so there is no reason to make  
that search.



> I can think of a 'meaning' when I look at the infinite
> number of pi (metaphorically speaking) and it is: THAT
> meaning is not prone to be expressed in decimal
> numbers (the reason of its infinite unexpressebla,
> uncodable variety) it is simply and only "pi" as
> described in geometrical terms.


Well, why?  pi has many aspects. geometrical, arithmetical, analytical,  
physical, probabilistical, philosophical, etc. All are interesting,  
imo. Of course, specific interest will depend of the context.




> But I am a
> simpleminded commonsense person, not a mathematician.


Are you suggesting that mathematician lack simplemindedness or  
commonsense or both ?
I doubt that.

:)

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to