On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
> On 09 May 2012, at 17:09, R AM wrote:
>
>
> "nothing" could also be obtained by removing the curly brackets from the
> empty set {}.
>
>
> Noooo... Some bit of blank remains. If it was written on hemp, you could
> smoke it. That's not nothing!
>
> Don't confuse the notion and the symbols used to point to the notion.
> Which you did, inadvertently I guess.
>
I was using the analogy between items contained in sets and things
contained in bags. The curly brackets would represent the bags. Removing
things from a bag leaves it empty. Removing the bag leaves ... nothing.
Sure, like 0 is some sort of nothing in Number theory, and like quantum
> vacuum is some sort of nothing in QM. Nothing is a theory dependent notion.
> (Not so for the notion of computable functions).
>
Yes, these concrete nothings are well behaved, unlike the absolute nothing,
which we don't know what rules it obey (in case it is a meaningful concept,
which it might not be).
> Extensionally, the UD is a function from nothing (no inputs) to nothing
> (no outputs), but then what a worker!
>
> Extensionally it belongs to { } ^ { }. It is a function from { } to { }.
>
But I guess that is because the UD generates internally all possible inputs
for all possible programs, isn't it.
Ricardo.
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
