On 12/16/2013 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/16/2013 8:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in such a universe, it's far too simple." There could not be
wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and work
properties" is impossible: probability zero.
I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large enough
say 10^80, that observers /can /exist, we can then ask whether such
work out the properties of numbers greater than 10^80.
Can we? Whenever I add 1 to 10^80 I get 10^80 in spite of Peano.
Use a programming language such as python or Java which supports big integers. It will
let you add 1 to 10^80.
I know. I was just taking 10^80 to mean "a very big number" which of course depends on
context. I generally do applied physics and engineering and so 10^80+1 = 10^80 for
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 email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.