On 06 May 2010, at 04:24, Rex Allen wrote:

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:

We haven't changed the relative number of Rexs and not-Rexs, we've
just labeled them with an extra property and then rearranged them
according to that additional property.  They retain their original
properties though.

So, we still have a countable infinity of Rexs, and a countable
infinity of not-Rexs.  Who can be placed into one-to-one

SO...what difference does the "measure" make when deciding, as Carroll
put it, "which infinity wins"?

To me this sounds very similar to the Tristram Shandy Paradox. Yes? No?


Nice page. I think people should find there enough to conclude that cardinality if on no help in probability measure problems.

Assuming digital mechanism "intuitively", with the rule Y = II, the measure is on a non enumerable set: the set of all computations, including their dovetailing on infinite algebraic structures (like the reals), and all what we (the lobian entities) can say is that the measure one obeys sort of arithmetical quantum logic of credibility.



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