Le 28-juil.-12, à 20:37, Stephen P. King a écrit :

On 7/28/2012 9:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:This is a "degeneracy" problem, everything looks, acts and even isone and the same thing, so how is there any differentiation thatallows a plurality to obtain?0 ≠ s(0) ≠ s(s(0)) ≠ ....I need to explain myself on this claim for the sake of othersthat might be confused and yet open to understanding.The non-equivalence that Bruno points out here with "0 ≠ s(0) ≠s(s(0)) ≠ .... " is correct, but that correctness changes

?

when we introduce Godel Numbering. Godel numbering is the coding ofstatements about numbers as numbers and so has the effect of makingthe " ≠ " ambiguous

?

`(it is just a translation. Why would a translation make a statement`

`ambiguous?)`

and thus making the non-equivalence of numbers degenerate. Once weintroduce the idea that numbers can code for other numbers then itfollows that numbers are no longer uniquely different from each other.Therefore the plurality of numbers with regard to their ability todefine multiple unique quantities vanishes.QED

? Bruno 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 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.