Bruno and Ricardo: ...unless you remove the "boundries" as well - I think. That would end up for "nothing" with a POINT, which is still a point and not nothing. (If you eliminate the point???) John M
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09 May 2012, at 21:39, R AM wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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. > > > Nothing in the universe of sets. But this makes not much sense. And you > have still an empty universe. Then you will tell me to remove all > universes, but you will still get an empty multiverse. Oh, you can get rid > of all multiverses, but you will still have an empty multi-multiverse. Oh, > you can reiterate this in the transfinite, ... but you need some rich > theory at the metalevel, then. Absolute nothingness does not make sense in > my opinion. > > > > > 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). > > > OK. > > > > > >> 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. > > > Right. > > Bruno > > > > Ricardo. > > -- > 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. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
