On 10/6/2012 10:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

## Advertising

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King<stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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 <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? JasonLOL 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 extended3-manifold. Is this not a "universe with 0 objects"?In any case, did my example change your opinion regarding theprimality of 17 in a universe with 16 objects?Jason

`Were did the "infinitely extended 3-manifold" come from? You are`

`treating it as if it where an object!`

-- 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.