I am indeed ready to pursue further and since we'll be covering 
both topics anyhow, I would prefer that you choose which would be the most 
natural next step for us.

              Also, I assume you have seen the following and I wondered if it 
tends to confirm UDA.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:38 AM
  Subject: Re: Seven Step Series

  I ask to all those who told me they were happy that I pursue this little 
teaching further the following question.  Are you ready that I pursue? Are you 
ready that I introduce a few bit of "new" material. Sometimes (actually most of 
the time) new materials can shed new light on what has been already seen. 

  What do you prefer, that I continue with the sets (with the notion of 
couples, and then of cartesian products, and then of operation, relation, 
function, etc.)
  Or do you prefer I prove first that the square root of 2, you know, that 
number which multiplied by itself gives 2, is irrational (= does not belongs to 
Q, = is not a fraction,  = is not a periodic decimal). ?

  I am sure many of you already know this, but this is an typical impossibility 
result, and somehow the whole machine 'theology' is a collection of 
impossibility results, so the irrationality of the square root of 2 is a good 
introduction to such type of result. Also I will give you a typical example of 
non constructive proof base on the square root of two. (And for those 
interested in the quantum confirmation of comp, the square root of 2 is the 
amplitude coefficient leading to the probability 1/2, which is rather 
important, if only for examples again).

  It is really like most prefer. You can tell me: "do like you want", but I 
prefer to ask.



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

Reply via email to