On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 6:59 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/20/2014 4:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:32 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/20/2014 12:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> And to answer this properly, you have to define "physical existence of >>>>> Brent" without using arithmetic. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Brent:=the being who typed this sentence. (Or next time you're in >>>> California, come by and I'll give an ostensive definition - and a cup of >>>> coffee.) >>>> >>> >>> Thanks very much for the coffee cup, I appreciate. But frankly this will >>> not work. If I need to define number by invoking a being typing a sentence >>> in a post dated the 19 janvier 2014, oops: I am using some numbers here. >>> >> >> You didn't ask to define a number, you asked to define "physical >> existence of Brent". And 19 January 2014 can easily be defined as when >> Brent typed the above message. I think you (understandably as a logician) >> are so immersed in the axiomatic method that you lose of sight of its >> connection to the physical world. Definitions become nothing but relations >> between symbols if you never ground them in pointing. >> >> >> Don't ask someone who want to compute 2+2=4 to come in California and >>> drink four cups of coffee, if all computers have to do that I am afraid the >>> net will become extremely slow ... >>> I find much more plausible that I can explain numbers behavior, and >>> Brent's brain and ideas, from elementary arithmetical axioms, than explain >>> arithmetic from Brent and other humans ideas. Come on ... >>> >> >> I'm quite sure you can explain Brent's brain and ideas without using any >> number bigger than 10^100. >> >> > Just the sentence: > > "I'm quite sure you can explain Brent's brain and > ideas without using any number bigger than 10^100." > > Takes a number larger than 10^100 to represent. > > > No, the sentence only uses the description "any number bigger than > 10^100". It's logically equivalent to, "Every explanation of Brent's brain > and ideas uses only number less than 10^100". > > Okay, then you should have clarified "no single number bigger than 10^100". It is possible to represent your ideas as a series of much smaller numbers, however their combined product will almost certainly be bigger than 10^100, even for very short sentences. (10^100 is less than 42 bytes of information.) Jason -- 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.
