On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 05:31:21PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> The states are countable, but not the (3-)states + the neighborhhood
> of (infinite) computations that you are mentioning yourselves.
> Not sure if I see where is the problem. It seems that you have
> answered it. The 1-OMs *are* set of histories, but with a particular
> 3-state, single out in the indexical way, and which will play the
> role of the "Bp". The "& p" will force the logic of the
> computational extensions to be different.

The way I was talking about it, there is a 1:1 correspondence between
the 3-states and the sets of histories making up the 1-OM. In that
case the cardinality of 1-OM is the same as that of the 3-states -
which you have already admitted is countable.

Perhaps I'm missing something? I don't quite get the "indexical" bit
for instance.



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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

Reply via email to