Hi Quentin:
I do not see that at all. All that has been
demonstrated is that a list can be so mapped not
that such a mapping must exist. The list can still be first.
Hal Ruhl
At 02:37 PM 3/12/2006, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Le Dimanche 12 Mars 2006 20:11, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> > Lists and numbe
Thanks, the 'truncation' occurs in the process of
Reply B U T it happens frequently in this
awful Yahoo!-mail maze that when I try ANYTHING while
writing a reply (or compose a mail) the text
disappears without recall. I wrote to Bruno a pretty
well thought-through reply to his post to
John M wrote:
>
> Georges,
> this is to your reflections to my remarks. It starts
> to look like a private discussion on-list,
Not completely. And some may also follow the discussion
an find it interesting even if they do not participate
(as I often do for other threads).
> but I love it.
So d
John M wrote:
>
> [...]
> === message truncated ===
If for some reason you receive the message truncated in your
mail tool, you can probably get the full texte from the site:
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
Georges.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You rece
Hi,
Le Dimanche 12 Mars 2006 20:11, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
> Lists and numbers:
>
> My model's only assumption [I think] is a countably infinite list of
> possible properties of objects.
For a list to have the property of being countably infinite require that
natural numbers exist before... becau
Lists and numbers:
My model's only assumption [I think] is a countably infinite list of
possible properties of objects. Dividing the list defines two
objects. There would be an uncountably infinite number of such
divisions of the list. No operator is necessary but different
divisions of th
Hi John,
Le 11-mars-06, à 23:40, John M a écrit :
> [Reductionist thinking is the way the human mind CAN
> function at our present level.
I disagree. No serious scientific paper can be reductionnist.
Many media and scientist themselves (the week-end in the lucky case)
defend reductionist inte
Le 11-mars-06, à 10:59, Georges Quénot wrote (to John):
>
> Yes also and indeed, the way of thinking I presented
> fits within a reductionist framework. Nobody is required
> to adhere to such a framework (and therefore to the way
> of thinking I presented). If one rejects the reductionist
> a
8 matches
Mail list logo
