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...

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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---