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

## Advertising

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 tothis post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires theuse 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 than10^152. So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely becausewe 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 init, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects?Jason

LOL Jason,

`Did you completely miss the point of "reality"? When is it even`

`possible to have a "universe with 0 objects"? Nice oxymoron!`

-- Onward! Stephen -- 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.