Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 17-avr.-06, à 19:53, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Along those line, I notice that Chaitin (referencing du Sautoy) says
that if it could be proved that the Riemann Hypothesis is undecidable
then it is true, since if it were false then it would be decidable by
finding a
Tom Caylor wrote:
I am not aware that there have been any
subsets of the critical strip 0 Re(s) 1 that have been found to be
zero-free, yet.
I meant non-trivial subsets, e.g. a vertical line/strip inside the
critical strip.
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
Le 16-avr.-06, à 06:08, danny mayes a écrit :
Could you expound on this a little more? Both the MWI through a wavy
approach to numbers, and the point about primes are possibly new
concepts to me. Or maybe you're talking about things I am familiar
with
in an unfamiliar way. I'm not
A couple of quick thoughts out loud.
My previous thought on the possible connection between the OR/AND dual
(along with addition/multiplication) and the Riemann Hypothesis might
be extended by looking at the Riemann zeta function. Notice that the
infinite series form of the zeta function's uses
Le 13-avr.-06, à 22:34, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno,
I have a couple of random thoughts, but I hope they are not too
incoherent (decoherent?) for someone to understand and see if it leads
anywhere.
First, it seems that the comp distinction between 1st and 3rd person
point-of-view can
Bruno Marchal wrote:
And then, well, yes, it could. And from Zeta's behavior, a whole many
world interpretation of number theory, through a wavy approach to
numbers (like Ramanujan's one) would be possible.
Primes could even plausibly justified some single universe selection
(if they are
I think there is a need for one more person. This is how I would define
first person pov and third person pov:
Third person is a single history pov that requires the
observation of
an event whose existence does not correlate with the existence of the
observer. This is the classical,
Le 11-avr.-06, à 00:19, John M a écrit :
Comp? I always considered it the - so far - best ways
the human mind could invent for reductionist thinking.
I am too busy this week to comment this delicate point. I will explain
later some basic think in computer science which are needed, not only
Le 07-avr.-06, à 22:52, John M a écrit :
I went to see your points 1-8, as suggested. I started
to read AT THE BEGINNING and got stupefait
(perplexed?) by your sentences.
Which one? (If you are interested in an explanation).
First: I don't
appreciate thought experiments:
All proof
Le 05-avr.-06, à 23:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom) wrote :
Another categorization of this dichotomy could be the Plato universals
corresponding to Intensional definitions and the possible, vs. the
Aristotle particulars corresponding to the Extensional definitions and
the actual. The
Le 05-avr.-06, à 22:35, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi,
Le Mercredi 5 Avril 2006 22:07, John M a écrit :
Stephen:
right on! (onwards, of course).
I did not mention the arts. Express art by numbers
and you killed the art.
It is not a question to describe art by numbers... I'd say it is
Le 04-avr.-06, à 21:24, John M wrote:
Bruno, you failed to give me an answer. I must be more
simpleminded than you 'math-minded people' who see
some relation between a 'big' number and the Gone with
the Wind. I don't. No matter how big and how long (you
said: eternity and infinitely big?
I went to see your points 1-8, as suggested. I started
to read AT THE BEGINNING and got stupefait
(perplexed?) by your sentences. First: I don't
appreciate thought experiments: they are artifacts to
show something NOT TRUE and make 'the truth' shown by
it (eg. EPR). People love them because it
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Quentin:
I don't know from your wink at the end whether you
are half-serious or
not.
But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I can
on this), I think
I can correctly
Another categorization of this dichotomy could be the Plato universals
corresponding to Intensional definitions and the possible, vs. the
Aristotle particulars corresponding to the Extensional definitions and
the actual. The Intensional can also be associated with mathematical
descriptions
Sent: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:02:14 +0200
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Le Lundi 3 Avril 2006 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
GWTW = 01001010110 ... binary(Frankly, my dear,...) ...
01001101001.
Depending on the chosen encoding scheme, the binary representation
could be
any finite
Le 04-avr.-06, à 04:35, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
x-tad-bigger
/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerHow do numbers *distinguish* (if I am permitted to use that word) between */x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerpossibility/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger* and */x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggeractuality/x-tad-biggerx-tad-bigger*? Is
John ,
Bruno:
Aren't you fall back in your 2nd par at the end into
an 'idem per idem' explanation?
I asked (from Georges) a way to GET AWAY from the
number-essence or ID when we assign (con)ceptual
meanings to ideas/things you people call NUMBERS
ONLY. You return to a number-based
Bruno,
you failed to give me an answer. I must be more
simpleminded than you 'math-minded people' who see
some relation between a 'big' number and the Gone with
the Wind. I don't. No matter how big and how long (you
said: eternity and infinitely big? I don't buy such
conditions. These say to me:
, and what topology if any
we should choose for Everything (why the complex plane?).
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 15:47:29 +0200
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Let us just take
Le Lundi 3 Avril 2006 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
GWTW = 01001010110 ... binary(Frankly, my dear,...) ... 01001101001.
Depending on the chosen encoding scheme, the binary representation could be
any finite binary string, even this '0' or '1', in this case all the
information is in fact
-
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:02:14 +0200
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Le Lundi 3 Avril 2006 18:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
GWTW = 01001010110 ... binary(Frankly, my dear,...) ...
01001101001
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Let us just take the numbers, I mean the finite numbers 0, 1, 2, ...
But let us take them all.
Then it can be shown that numbers without an encoding of Gone with the
wind are quite exceptional. Almost all natural numbers, written in
any base
rd!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean
TOE
Quentin:I don't know
from your wink at the end whether you are half-serious or not.But
: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Tom,
may I humblly ask for an example, HOW you would
imagine the 'sequence' in pi's infinite variety of
numbers the connotation for Gone
Le 30-mars-06, à 15:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
*Marc dances a jig with delight and claps Bruno on the back*
A deliciously interesting post Bruno my dear fellow, a deliciously
interesting post! I'd be very interested to see anything else you have
on the Riemann Hypothesis and it's
Le 31-mars-06, à 08:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
x-tad-bigger
/x-tad-biggerx-tad-biggerInteresting! This reminds me of the old standby example of being able to find any sequence of digits in the digits of pi, and therefore being able to find whole digital recordings of Gone With The Wind or
Tom,
may I humblly ask for an example, HOW you would
imagine the 'sequence' in pi's infinite variety of
numbers the connotation for Gone With The Wind - the
movie?
Just 'per apices', show the kind of sequence included,
I don't want all the details.
Thank you
John M
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE
Tom,
may I humblly ask for an example, HOW you would
imagine the 'sequence' in pi's infinite variety of
numbers the connotation for Gone With The Wind - the
movie?
Just 'per apices', show the kind of sequence included,
I don't want all the details.
Thank you
John M
*Marc dances a jig with delight and claps Bruno on the back*
A deliciously interesting post Bruno my dear fellow, a deliciously
interesting post! I'd be very interested to see anything else you have
on the Riemann Hypothesis and it's possible connection to a 'theory of
everything'.
There were
Interesting! This reminds me of the old standby example of being able
to find anysequence of digits in the digits of pi, and therefore being
able to find whole digital "recordings" of "Gone With The Wind" or anything you
desire, including your-whole-life-as-you-desire-it-to-be, if yousearch
Hi,
I think I have already mentionned it (four years ago?) but I have
another Theory of Everything sleeping somewhere in my brain and books.
I made an allusion about it yesterday in my post to Peter D Jones, and
I take this as an opportunity to say some more words on it. Hope it is
not too
32 matches
Mail list logo
