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. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] 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 [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.
