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

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?


    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?


Were did the "infinitely extended 3-manifold" come from? You are treating it as if it where an object!



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