I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation
of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected!

I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration
by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined.
Enumeration by inconsistency seems more intuitive to me: inconsistency
can be readily detected (derive P&~P), whereas incompleteness cannot.


On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Hal Ruhl <halr...@alum.syracuse.edu> wrote:
> Hi Abram:
> My sentence structure could have been better.  The Nothing(s) encompass no
> distinction but need to respond to the stability question.  So they have an
> unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction.  At some point they
> spontaneously change nature and become Somethings.  The particular Something
> may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable
> questions.  This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going.
> In this regard also see my next lines in that post:
> "The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition.  They
> each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability
> distinction.  They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]."
> I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years
> in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as
> clear as it could have been.
> However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your
> discussion of inconsistency driven traces.  I had not considered this
> before.
> Yours
> Hal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM
> To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
> Hal,
> I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I
> interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line:
> "5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no
> distinction but must encompass this one.  This is a type of incompleteness."
> If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are
> apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert
> them to be incomplete?
> --Abram
> >

Abram Demski
Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com
Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski
Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com

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

Reply via email to