Well if it was true a set of non related states (which I could define
as the states transition rule is "bigger" than the total information
content of each state) is consistent... what I think Brent is trying
to argue (hope I did understand :D-)... I do not believe in this, but
maybe I'm to naïve...

##
Advertising

Regards,
Quentin
2008/11/9 A. Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:41 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> To infer means there is "a process" which permits to infer.. if there
>> is none... then you can't simply infer something.
>
> The process itself arises naturally from the universe of sets
> guaranteed by the axioms of set theory. For example, the Axiom of
> Union says that the elements of the elements of a set form a set. You
> can therefore infer that if the set { { { } }, { { { } } } } exists,
> then the set { { }, { { } } } exists. By using the axioms alone,
> you can prove and disprove everything in mathematics. The process of
> inference comes from the axioms themselves and the undefinable
> membership relation.
>
> This is elementary set theory...any basic course in set theory should
> cover this.
>
> Anna
>
> >
>
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---