On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:34:42AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > <http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/identity3.jpg?w=595> > > > <http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/identity3.jpg?w=595> > > Here’s a crazy little number that I like to call the Non-Well-Founded > Identity Principle. It woke my boiling brain up a few times last night, so > I present it now in its raw state of lunacy. > > The idea here is “For All A, A equals the integral between A and (the > integral between A and not A)”.
How are we to interpret this? You don't state what A is, but to have an integration limit of A implies it is an element of a Lebesgue measurable set. Yet the expression not-A implies that A is a set. Are you doing integration over sets of sets? What is your Lebesgue measure in this case? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
