On 17 Dec 2013, at 07:01, meekerdb wrote:
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 one wherefore "he could deduce the existence of 17
theoretically, and work out its properties" is impossible:
I can't see the significance of this argument. If we take a large
enough number, say 10^80, that observers can exist, we can then
ask whether such observers could 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.
This does not make Peano false. You just work in a context which is
not a model of Peano. You could ay group theory is false, because (N,
+) is not a group.
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 physical variables.
Natural numbers are not supposed to be physical variable, nor real
numbers, nor big number as handled by a small computer, etc.
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.