On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> They show you how to generate terms in a sequence and if you add up >> enough of them you'd get the the 10^(10^(10^100))th decimal digit of pi; >> but it assumes that there is no barrier that makes doing that impossible >> and states that assumption with 3 little dots (...). I don't know for >> certain but those 3 little dots *might* be saying something that is logical >> nonsense, I do know for certain that the first mathematicians who used >> those 3 little dots knew nothing about quantum mechanics or the >> computational limit of the universe, and that gives me pause. > > > >> > What I explained is that if you think there is a largest number *that* > is what definitely leads to logical nonsense. > >> Say there is a largest number N, such that N+1 is [...] If physics is more fundamental than mathematics (and it *might* be) and if physicists are right about there being a limit on the number of calculations that can be performed in the universe and if N is the largest integer that can be counted in the universe then N +1 is as logically ridiculous as N divided by zero. >> If mathematics is a language then it needs something to talk about, > and like any language you can write fiction or nonfiction. If it's just a > language then mathematics can talk about the physical world (non-fiction) > but it can also be used to write fiction. So some or the more esoteric > and abstract areas of mathematics, and perhaps even something as mundane as > the Real Numbers, *might* be rather like a mathematical version of a Harry > Potter novel. > > No, fiction like Harry Potter doesn't kick back. If you can simply make > up the largest Mersenne prime then do so, Prove to me that physics is more fundamental than mathematics (right now I don't know if it is or not) and then give me a computer with the computational power of the entire universe and then I will be happy to tell you exactly what the largest Mersenne prime is. >>>The number C is so large it can't be factored in the life of the >> universe. Do you believe A and B have definite values despite our inability >> to compute them? > > >>If mathematics is just a language and if factoring that composite number >> would exceed the computational capacity of the entire universe and if you >> really can destroy information (and nearly all physicists think that you >> can not) then yes, A and B would no longer have definite values; I mean if >> you destroy something then obviously it no longer exists. But if you can >> destroy information then all sorts of other very weird things could happen >> too. However I don't think you can destroy information. > > > > I wasn't asking whether you thought they were destroyed but whether or > not the factors of C still had definite values or not. > I though I had already answered that. If physics is more fundamental than mathematics (and I have no idea if that's true or not) and if the universe has a computational limit as rigidly enforced as the speed of light limit (and I think that is probably true) and if information can be destroyed (and I think that is probably false) and if you destroy the factors of C then obviously C no longer has any factors. John K Clark -- 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/d/optout.
