Hi David,
I cannot wait for your questions on step 8 :)
I cannot wait for your answers :-)
Asap. I am busy. Too much things to do. Hope I will find some
windows ...
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Asap. I am busy. Too much things to do. Hope I will find some
windows ...
No problem Bruno - whenever you have a moment to spare.
David
Best,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
It's almost like ASCII art. Just wanted to signal that I'm following.
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
2009/8/11 Rex Allen rexallen...@gmail.com:
You speak as if though we have a choice as to how we behave! This I
can't see at all.
Whether our behavior is caused subatomic particles or arithmetic, or
is completely uncaused, there is no room for libertarian free will.
Whether will is free,
On 11 Aug 2009, at 01:47, David Nyman wrote:
2009/8/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
But strictly speaking (I am also a stickler), the first person can
never identify herself to *any* representation, she share this with
the 0-person ONE, or the non differentiate (arithmetical) truth.
On 11 Aug 2009, at 07:13, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for
the sake of the argument.
So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm
conscious OF
Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't see the theory. What do you ask us to agree on, if only for
the sake of the argument.
So, while the contents of my experience...the things that I'm
conscious OF are complex and
On 11 Aug 2009, at 15:32, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
You will make panic those who are not familiar with symbols!
It's almost like ASCII
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
exponentiation.
I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the
seven
step serii made a small typo
A^B - the set of all functions from A to B.
I
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Aug 2009, at 09:08, Colin Hales wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Aug 2009, at 04:37, Colin Hales wrote:
Man this is a tin of worms! I have just done a 30 page detailed
refutation of computationalism.
It's going through peer review at the moment.
The basic
2009/8/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Bruno, thanks for your detailed responses which I will peruse closely.
Meanwhile, I finally managed to locate on FOR an apparently coherent
summary of the MGA (which I understand to be the essence of UDA-8).
Here is my understanding of it:
The MGA
Hi Colin,
It seems that to me that until one understands the nature of the extreme
Idealism that COMP entails, no arguement based on the physical will do...
I refute it thus!
-Dr. Johnson http://www.samueljohnson.com/refutati.html
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
12 matches
Mail list logo
