Hal,
I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I
interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line:
"5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no
distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness."
If they
Hi Abram:
I have interlaced responses with - symbols.
Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:10 PM
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Revisions t
Bruno, you have strong (and likable) arguments from *your* point of view. I
would like to say *"NO"* to the doctor, because a digital brain is but a
reduction, from all that what I seek as whatever 'nature' (the world?) can
provide. I don't know what, I call it 'analogue' - beyond those tools
avail
Hal,
Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own
incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but
what do you mean by that?
It sounds to me like what you are describing is some version of an
inconsistent set theory that is somehow trying to repair itself.
(Exce
Hi Tom,
On 27 Dec 2008, at 22:50, Tom Caylor wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Just coming at this after not thinking about it much.
Good method :)
> Sometimes
> that's an advantage, but sometimes it results in forgetting pertinent
> points that were understood before.
As a math teacher, I know perfec
On 27 Dec 2008, at 20:50, Günther Greindl wrote:
> I agree with Bruno that all empirical evidence in this universe
> suggest
> that CT = PCT. But this need not be so, in a logical sense.
Indeed. UDA shows that PCT is a mysterious, if not *the* mystery with
CT. Logicaly, and a priori, CT im
6 matches
Mail list logo