On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> 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>wrote:
>> On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible
>> 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!
Say there is a universe that exists only an infinitely extended 3-manifold.
Is this not a "universe with 0 objects"?
In any case, did my example change your opinion regarding the primality of
17 in a universe with 16 objects?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at