Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 24 Aug 2011, at 21:34, meekerdb wrote: On 8/24/2011 11:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 K = R + 1 + HP - H A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 C = 2R + 1 Ph D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 Thanks to Jones, Matiyasevitch. Some number Nu verifying that system of diophantine equations (the variables are integers) are Löbian stories, on which the machine's first person indeterminacy will be distributed. We don't even need to go farer than the polynomial equations to describe the ROE. I'm reminded of the apocryphal story of Euler being asked by Catherine the Great to counter Diederot who was trying to convert the Russian court to atheism. Euler wrote e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 therefore God exists. Well, it looks like, but you should quote the dialog: here I was asked *explicitly* to use only addition and multiplication. So I did. What I give was a *specific* universal system written using only addition and multiplication. The difference with, say, this: 0 ≠ s(x) s(x) = s(y) - x = y x+0 = x x+s(y) = s(x+y) x*0=0 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x is that here we usee more symbols and, furthermore, assume classical logic. The purpose was illustrative only. Note that Benjayk could have asked me a universal number. We have that X belongs to W_Nu (with W_i = domain of the phi_i) if and only if X and Nu satisfy the the polynomial equation above. So a universal Nu is a number such that W_Nu which is a Sigma_1 complete set. That exists, but it would be very tedious to isolate it. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Interesting paper on consciousness, computation and MWI
Hi David, It looks not so bad :) At first sight it is based on the ASSA (absolute self-samplings, like in the doomsday argument; may be Russell can comment on this). He seems naïve on the identity thesis, but that could be a reduction ad absurdum. The use of classical chaos is interesting, but not completely convincing, I might think on it. Will take a deeper look later. Thanks, Bruno On 25 Aug 2011, at 00:12, David Nyman wrote: This paper presents some intriguing ideas on consciousness, computation and the MWI, including an argument against the possibility of consciousness supervening on any single deterministic computer program (Bruno might find this interesting). Any comments on its cogency? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208038 David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AyiMzznp-hIJ . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: consciousness
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: . Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss (although not necessarily self-conscious). Hi again Right Consicence may be a less sophisticated version of self-consciousness.. I think honestly that all attemps of explaining conscience in terms of a certain degree of complexity or as a certain property of neurons or tissues goes the wrong path. Broadly speaking, this is like a medieval scientist trying to explain a video game console in terms of the complexity and colourfulness of the printed circuits. These views ignores the work of the hardware designer that creates the machine and the programmer that make the algorithms. In living beings the work of the hardware designer and the programmer are done by a guy called Natural Selection. and this guy builds things for a purpose: Survival. What is conscience for? A self preserving being with a central nervous system (an animal) must stablish a clear distinction between its body and the environment in order to preserve itself. If he do not know the status of each of its parts in relation to the environment, he can not determine the priorities for self preservation: does he must avoid a predator? does he must eat something? etc. The effect of the activity set of all these central nervous systems is the conscience in the most basic manifestation. No degree of complexity or neuronal-like machinery will manifest conscience without the proper algorithms (and the sensors-actuators too). As Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology (and i suspect, nothing in anything) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Honestly: Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: consciousness
On Aug 25, 6:12 am, Alberto G.Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: . Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss (although not necessarily self-conscious). Hi again Right Consicence may be a less sophisticated version of self-consciousness.. I think honestly that all attemps of explaining conscience in terms of a certain degree of complexity or as a certain property of neurons or tissues goes the wrong path. Broadly speaking, this is like a medieval scientist trying to explain a video game console in terms of the complexity and colourfulness of the printed circuits. These views ignores the work of the hardware designer that creates the machine and the programmer that make the algorithms. In living beings the work of the hardware designer and the programmer are done by a guy called Natural Selection. and this guy builds things for a purpose: Survival. What is conscience for? A self preserving being with a central nervous system (an animal) must stablish a clear distinction between its body and the environment in order to preserve itself. If he do not know the status of each of its parts in relation to the environment, he can not determine the priorities for self preservation: does he must avoid a predator? does he must eat something? etc. The effect of the activity set of all these central nervous systems is the conscience in the most basic manifestation. No degree of complexity or neuronal-like machinery will manifest conscience without the proper algorithms (and the sensors-actuators too). As Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology (and i suspect, nothing in anything) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Honestly: Alberto. I think even evolution is only one half of the story, or the story seen from only one side. Everything that conscience could provide in terms of survival could be just as easily provided unconsciously. There would be no need for the video game to have a graphic interface and controller if you already have software that runs directly on the hardware. I agree completely that complexity is the wrong direction to go in, but in addition to the teleonomy of evolution, we routinely participate teleologically in/as/through the universe. Even if there were some evolutionary purpose served by feeling like we are participating and making choices when we aren't, and for the elaborately rich cornucopia of sensation and imagination we have instant access to, evolution itself has no way to conjure 'experience' out of inert material phenomena. It would be much more likely for evolution to develop something like voluntary time travel or physical omnipotence as a survival strategy then something like feeling which totally defies conception in conventional physical terms. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
Bruno Marchal wrote: Aren't you restricting your notion of what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with its own assumptions? Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what explanation are, and what we can hope to be 100% explainable, and what we will never be explained (like the numbers). It seems to me what it does is assuming what is explained and then explain that this is so, while not making explicit that it is assumes (see below). In effect, I believe it shows that our efforts to find fundamental explantions are bound to fail, because explanations do not apply to the fundamental thing. Explanations are just relative pointers from one obvious thing to another. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: You have to study to understand by yourself that it explain mind and matter from addition and multiplication, and that the explanation is the unique one maintainable once we say yes to the doctor. The explanation of matter is enough detailed so that we can test the comp theory with observation. If this were true, show me a document just consisting of addition and multplication that tells ANYTHING about mind and matter or even anything beyond numbers and addition and multiplication without your explanation. As long as you can't provide this it seems to me you ask me to study something that doesn't exist. Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 K = R + 1 + HP - H A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 C = 2R + 1 Ph D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 Thanks to Jones, Matiyasevitch. Some number Nu verifying that system of diophantine equations (the variables are integers) are Löbian stories, on which the machine's first person indeterminacy will be distributed. We don't even need to go farer than the polynomial equations to describe the ROE. What you ask me is done in good textbook on Mathematical logic. You used more than numbers in this example, namely variables. But even then, I am not convinced this formulas make sense as being löbian stories without an explanation. Surely, I can't prove that. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Sure. It is main point of the comp theory, and of its TOE, it justifies the unavoidability of faith in science. Even in the non applied science, but far more in the applied science. It does not need to be blind faith, though. This confuses me. So we seem to agree completely on this point. Yet you disagreed with my statement that intuition is needed at a fundamental level. We don't need it at the *primitive level* in the TOE. Of course we need it at the meta-level. You assume that by not mentioning it in the TOE the TOE somehow independent of it. Why is it not possible that we simply failed to mention in, yet still use it? It is up to you to show where it is used. Arithmetics depends on truth/sense. If there is no truth/sense, no arithmetical statment can make sense. We have no reason at all to believe sense is restricted to arithmetics, thus with postulating that there is truth we can use everything. Bruno Marchal wrote: Actually it depends on what you mean with universe. If you define universe as everything that is, not what we commonly call our universe in physics (that works according to QM and GR). If you think of the universe as all that is, I would indeed say that it makes not much sense to write on its origin, as it would have to be its own origin, as there is nothing outside it. With comp, it is absolutely undecidable if the Universe is different from N, and with Occam, it is enough. No. We need the sense in N, which is beyond N. Without sense, N is non-sensical. It is up to you to prove that sense is only the sense in N. Everbody assumes it is more than that. And if you say that we need only the sense in natural numbers, show that the sense in natural numbers makes sense without sense in general, or can somehow by seperated our from sense in general. Bruno Marchal wrote: Why do I say this? Because truth apart from self-knowledge can make no sense to me. With you = God, OK. But that kind of knowledge explains nothing. (Remember that the goal is in finding a conceptual understanding of mind and matter, or the closer we can get). With you = man, I am not OK. Indeed that kind of knowledge explains nothing. Maybe there is nothing to explain on a fundamental level. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But it is all we can
Re: consciousness
On 8/25/2011 3:12 AM, Alberto G.Corona wrote: On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: . Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss (although not necessarily self-conscious). Hi again Right Consicence may be a less sophisticated version of self-consciousness.. I think honestly that all attemps of explaining conscience in terms of a certain degree of complexity or as a certain property of neurons or tissues goes the wrong path. Broadly speaking, this is like a medieval scientist trying to explain a video game console in terms of the complexity and colourfulness of the printed circuits. These views ignores the work of the hardware designer that creates the machine and the programmer that make the algorithms. In living beings the work of the hardware designer and the programmer are done by a guy called Natural Selection. and this guy builds things for a purpose: Survival. Or more accurately: Reproduction. But evolution must work with what it has. That was Julian Jaynes insight into why we have an inner narrative instead of some other kind of consciousness. Our symbolic cogitation is built on top of our language, which in turn is built on top of social relations. Brent What is conscience for? A self preserving being with a central nervous system (an animal) must stablish a clear distinction between its body and the environment in order to preserve itself. If he do not know the status of each of its parts in relation to the environment, he can not determine the priorities for self preservation: does he must avoid a predator? does he must eat something? etc. The effect of the activity set of all these central nervous systems is the conscience in the most basic manifestation. No degree of complexity or neuronal-like machinery will manifest conscience without the proper algorithms (and the sensors-actuators too). As Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology (and i suspect, nothing in anything) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Honestly: Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: consciousness
On 25 Aug 2011, at 12:12, Alberto G.Corona wrote: On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: . Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss (although not necessarily self-conscious). Hi again Right Consicence may be a less sophisticated version of self-consciousness.. I think honestly that all attemps of explaining conscience in terms of a certain degree of complexity or as a certain property of neurons or tissues goes the wrong path. I agree. Those are implementation. Conscience and consciousness are attribute of first person, soul; etc. Broadly speaking, this is like a medieval scientist trying to explain a video game console in terms of the complexity and colourfulness of the printed circuits. These views ignores the work of the hardware designer that creates the machine and the programmer that make the algorithms. But little program with simple instruction (like help yourself) can go very far if you give them the time. We can already have conversations with simple introspective machine, albeit abstract and mathematical. In living beings the work of the hardware designer and the programmer are done by a guy called Natural Selection. and this guy builds things for a purpose: Survival. What is conscience for? A self preserving being with a central nervous system (an animal) must stablish a clear distinction between its body and the environment in order to preserve itself. If he do not know the status of each of its parts in relation to the environment, he can not determine the priorities for self preservation: does he must avoid a predator? does he must eat something? etc. The effect of the activity set of all these central nervous systems is the conscience in the most basic manifestation. OK. The effect. Not the activity itself, but what the activity can represent. Consciousness is belief in a reality. The role of self-consciousness is self-acceleration with respect to that probable and possible reality. No degree of complexity or neuronal-like machinery will manifest conscience without the proper algorithms (and the sensors-actuators too). As Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology (and i suspect, nothing in anything) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Evolution itself is a speeding up process. It build layers and layers of universal level, a process mimicked by life, and then by thought, and then by languages, and then (now) by machines. Brain, computer, genome, universal machine, programming languages, what I call the universal numbers or machines (UMs) are basically dynamical mirror, and anticipator, and it allows and enlarge the spectrum of further explorations, it augment the relative degrees of freedom. Evolution is driven by simple ideas, not unlike the Mandelbrot set. It is not just mutation and selection, it is also meta-level evolution and efficacious self-perturbation, and who knows, some reflexive layers. A four dimensional view of humanity illustrates humanity and life is a fractal. They are known to be locally rather complex, but generated by powerful little idea (like try to eat, to f. and avoid to be eaten). The difference between natural and artificial is artificial. And thus natural when selves develop. Machines, from the stick of wood to the computers are natural extension of our life and thought and the evolution of thought. The universal machine is a terrible child. It is the little God. The one you can give it a name, and then he got the ten thousand names (Java, c++, prolog, algol, cobol, LISP, game of life, modular functor of type 5, topological computer, ..., your brain, your cells, and many parts of the physical universe, apparently). If you give to those UMs, the ability of mathematical induction, they seem to me as clever as you and me. They are just highly handicapped and disconnected relatively to our probable histories. But they universal incarnation is 50 years old, ours is billion of years old, yet, they develop very quickly. Computer science is mostly used to control them, not to let them controlling themselves, except timidly in AI research. Complexity is not the answer to deep questions. It is the consequence of simple answer to deep questions. Anyway, the comp consequences are independent of the substitution level chose. Physics has to be justified. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: COMP refutation paper - finally out
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Aren't you restricting your notion of what is explainable of what your own theory labels explainable with its own assumptions? Yes, but this is due to its TOE aspect: it explains what explanation are, and what we can hope to be 100% explainable, and what we will never be explained (like the numbers). It seems to me what it does is assuming what is explained and then explain that this is so, while not making explicit that it is assumes (see below). In effect, I believe it shows that our efforts to find fundamental explantions are bound to fail, because explanations do not apply to the fundamental thing. Explanations are just relative pointers from one obvious thing to another. This might explain why you don't study the argument. If you believe at the start we cannot do it, I understand the lack of motivation for the hard work. Have you understood the UD Argument: that IF we can survive with a digital brain, then physics is a branch of computer science or number theory. I think that your misunderstanding of the AUDA TOE comes from not having seen this point. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: You have to study to understand by yourself that it explain mind and matter from addition and multiplication, and that the explanation is the unique one maintainable once we say yes to the doctor. The explanation of matter is enough detailed so that we can test the comp theory with observation. If this were true, show me a document just consisting of addition and multplication that tells ANYTHING about mind and matter or even anything beyond numbers and addition and multiplication without your explanation. As long as you can't provide this it seems to me you ask me to study something that doesn't exist. Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2 Qu = B^(5^60) La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5 Th + 2Z = B^5 L = U + TTh E = Y + MTh N = Q^16 R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + + LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N) + [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1) P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2 (P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2 4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2 K = R + 1 + HP - H A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2 C = 2R + 1 Ph D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1 F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1 (D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1 Thanks to Jones, Matiyasevitch. Some number Nu verifying that system of diophantine equations (the variables are integers) are Löbian stories, on which the machine's first person indeterminacy will be distributed. We don't even need to go farer than the polynomial equations to describe the ROE. What you ask me is done in good textbook on Mathematical logic. You used more than numbers in this example, namely variables. Statements on numbers can use variable. If you want only numbers, translate those equation into one number, by Gödel's technic. But that would lead to a cumbersome gigantic expression. But even then, I am not convinced this formulas make sense as being löbian stories without an explanation. Surely, I can't prove that. This is like saying that a brain cannot make sense without another brain making sense of it. The point is technical: numbers + addition and multiplication does emulate the computational histories. You cannot use a personal feeling to doubt a technical result. Probably you are putting too much sense where a study would convince you that there is no such sense. I am not doing a philosophical point: I assume comp (which assumes both consciousness and physical reality), and I prove from those assumption that the TOE is arithmetic, with all the technical details to extract both quanta and qualia from it. Of course, to understand the theory you need a brain, and you need sense, but once you understand the theory you can understand where you brain and where your sense comes from. Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Sure. It is main point of the comp theory, and of its TOE, it justifies the unavoidability of faith in science. Even in the non applied science, but far more in the applied science. It does not need to be blind faith, though. This confuses me. So we seem to agree completely on this point. Yet you disagreed with my statement that intuition is needed at a fundamental level. We don't need it at the *primitive level* in the TOE. Of course we need it at the meta-level. You assume that by not mentioning it in the TOE the TOE somehow independent of it. Why is it not possible that we simply failed to mention in, yet still use it? It is up to you to show where it is used. Arithmetics depends on truth/sense. This is too much ambiguous. It introduces philosophy at a level where we cannot use it. If there is no truth/sense, no arithmetical statment can make sense. We have no reason at all to believe sense is restricted to
Re: Interesting paper on consciousness, computation and MWI
Hi, I have found what I believe is a flaw in the reasoning in the paper. On pages 5-6 we find: In Section 5, I attempt to apply this reasoning to the case of an infinite lifetime. I find that, on the one hand, in discovering his current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments, the observer should gain an infinite amount of information. But, on the other hand, I argue that such a state of affairs is not logically possible. Thus I conclude that an infinite conscious lifetime is not possible in principle. I disagree with this conclusion because the ability to 'discover' ones current moment out of an infinite ensemble of moments would require the ability to access the computational resources needed to run the computation of the search algorithm on the infinite ensemble. In this case it is required that an infinite quantity of resources be available in a finite or infinitesimal duration. The author does mention some aspects of the problem in computational terms but the issue of resources does not seem to have been noticed. I find it strange that computations can be treated as if they are not subject to the laws of physics that included prohibitions on perpetual motion machines. There is no such thing as a free computation. The content of our Observer moments is finite due to computational resource limitations not because of some universal prior measure. Onward! Stephen On 8/25/2011 5:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi David, It looks not so bad :) At first sight it is based on the ASSA (absolute self-samplings, like in the doomsday argument; may be Russell can comment on this). He seems naïve on the identity thesis, but that could be a reduction ad absurdum. The use of classical chaos is interesting, but not completely convincing, I might think on it. Will take a deeper look later. Thanks, Bruno On 25 Aug 2011, at 00:12, David Nyman wrote: This paper presents some intriguing ideas on consciousness, computation and the MWI, including an argument against the possibility of consciousness supervening on any single deterministic computer program (Bruno might find this interesting). Any comments on its cogency? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208038 David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AyiMzznp-hIJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
