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...


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 

Reply via email to