Interesting read.

The problem I have with this is that in set theory, there are several 
examples of sets who owe their existence to axioms alone. In other words, 
there is an axiom that states there is a set X such that (blah, blah, 
blah). How are we to know which sets/notions are meaningless concepts?  
Because to me, it sounds like Doron's personal opinion that some concepts 
are meaningless while other concepts like huge, unknowable, and tiny are 
not meaningless.  Is there anything that would remove the opinion portion 
of this?

How is the second axiom an improvement while containing words like huge, 
unknowable, and tiny??

So I deny even the existence of the Peano axiom that every integer has a 
successor. Eventually
we would get an overflow error in the big computer in the sky, and the sum 
and product of any
two integers is well-defined only if the result is less than p, or if one 
wishes, one can compute them
modulo p. Since p is so large, this is not a practical problem, since the 
overflow in our earthly
computers comes so much sooner than the overflow errors in the big computer 
in the sky.
end quote

What if the big computer in the sky is infinite? Or if all computers are 
finite in capacity yet there is no largest computer?

What if NO computer activity is relevant to the set of numbers that exist 

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:28:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> See here: 
> Saibal 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> ><javascript:>. 
> > Visit this group at 
> > For more options, visit 
> > 
> > 
> > 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to