On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
    Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all
    possible realities.

        It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it.
    I can come up with several other counter-examples in terms of
    finite field, but that is overly belaboring a point.

This can clearly be shown to be false. For me to be responding to this post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of prime numbers of 153 decimal digits in length.

There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe. This is far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152. So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have 10^153 things we can point to?

If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in it, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects?


LOL Jason,

Did you completely miss the point of "reality"? When is it even possible to have a "universe with 0 objects"? Nice oxymoron!



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