On 17 Feb 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/17/2013 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2013, at 04:29, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
After proving Euler's identity during a lecture, Benjamin Peirce,
a noted American 19th-century philosopher, mathematician,
and professor at Harvard
On 17 Feb 2013, at 23:54, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/17/2013 10:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. Euler identity is wonderful.
It amazes me also that it makes the square of any complex number
into a (non normalized) gaussian:
(e^ix)2 = e^(-x2)
I love also Euler even deeper identity
On 18 Feb 2013, at 06:39, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Klein Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY – The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
it is inappropriate and, as
On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental science?
Bruno
=
In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
Of course, it is correct, because only Physics can
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:11:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Feb 2013, at 22:14, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:20:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2013, at 23:37, Stephen P. King wrote, to Craig Weinberg
Baudrillard is not talking
On 18 Feb 2013, at 14:35, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
On Feb 18, 12:19 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Socratus, are you able to doubt that physics is the fundamental
science?
Bruno
=
In Physics we trust.
/ Tarun Biswas /
http://www.engr.newpaltz.edu/~biswast/
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb 2013, at 18:09, Jason Resch wrote:
Thanks to everyone who replied to this post. So far Stathis and Bruno both
answered that both cases are equivalent.
Is there anyone willing to argue against either:
1. you
Very Brunoish!
besides: you may invest in an s at the end of my (last) name, my son even
puts sh as an ending.
I don't care if John Mike is duplicated anywhere.
John Mikes
(active on THIs list since ~1998?)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Feb
Terren, (without taking the connotation seriously)
*... if God did not have a sense of humor, could we exist?... *
does that mean: we are just a joke?
JM
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:
If God is arithmetical truth, then what if anything is there to
On 2/18/2013 11:47 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
If God is arithmetical truth, then what if anything is there to be said about its
character? I know from a formal perspective the answer is nothing, because nothing
formal can be said about truth.
This is more of an informal question, and comes
Hi Brent,
No, I don't have any desire to anthropomorphize those things you mentioned,
but I think it's fair to say we are all wired to want to
anthropomorphize things
in general - especially things we can't predict that have some kind of
impact on us, like the weather. That said, I don't have a
On 2/18/2013 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Terren, (without taking the connotation seriously)
*/... if God did not have a sense of humor, could we exist?... /*
does that mean: we are just a joke?
JM
Who would be the one to laugh?
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Terren Suydam
On 2/18/2013 5:40 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/18/2013 2:54 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Terren, (without taking the connotation seriously)
*/... if God did not have a sense of humor, could we exist?... /*
does that mean: we are just a joke?
JM
Who would be the one to laugh?
God is a
A leading neuroscientist says Kurzweil’s Singularity isn’t going to happen.
Instead, humans will assimilate machines.
Miguel Nicolelis http://www.nicolelislab.net/, a top neuroscientist at
Duke University, says computers will never replicate the human brain and
that the technological
On 2/18/2013 9:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511421/the-brain-is-not-computable/
There is no argument presented in this article. The stock market and
brain and indeed most natural systems are chaotic, but that is not the
same as being not
On 2/18/2013 7:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/18/2013 9:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/511421/the-brain-is-not-computable/
There is no argument presented in this article. The stock market and brain and indeed
most natural systems are chaotic,
On Feb 18, 5:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Quite wise statements indeed.
But is that not a reason to be cautious
with general statement like you did above in the Biswas quote ?
Bruno
==
Oh, we are very careful.
We do every thing to escape infinity and nothingness.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/18/2013 11:47 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
If God is arithmetical truth, then what if anything is there to be said
about its character? I know from a formal perspective the answer is
nothing, because nothing formal can
18 matches
Mail list logo
