Dear John,
> JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind
> capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing
> against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers")
Well yes, that is the interesting question. But if you say that there
are no nu
Günther, *please see inserted in "JM:" lines*
John
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> John,
>
> my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
> two books could give you the central idea:
>
> Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
>
Dear Bruno,
>> Some of these books I have already read (Boolos),
> You mean read with pencil and paper?
Well no *grin* - it was the adopted textbook in one of the courses I
took, and I did the assigned exercises, but now flipping through the
book I realize I must go back to it again - more than
John,
my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
two books could give you the central idea:
Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations
(materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out).
The n
Kim, Russell
I appreciate your concern and propositions. I have a friend who thinks
about making a book with a subsubsection only (in french), and I think
that you could make hundreds of books from "Conscience et Mécanisme".
And I believe this could give money to the publishers, and the
tr
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 01:20:29PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I've also tried to dig through both Bruno's thesis with the help of
> >> google translator. It works for a while but soon one hits a wall
> >> with a
> >> difficult sente
Kim,
beware of your heroic offer! I read some books in both the original and
translated formats and KNOW that they are different. Not only has the
translator his 1st person understanding of WHAT to translate, the words
convey the new language's ambiguity for the reader's OWN 1st person
interpretati
On 31/01/2009, at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I've also tried to dig through both Bruno's thesis with the help of
>> google translator. It works for a while but soon one hits a wall
>> with a
>> difficult sentence/paragraph which is hard to understand even if it
>> stands as the author i
Hi Mirek,
>
>
>>> I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille
>>> thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only
>>> understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on
>>> the
>>> list - so it was easy to "translate". I am not so sure I
John,
> Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference?
Gödel and All. It is a major discovery of the 20th century: a
completely clear notion of third person self-reference.
A first person self-reference theory follows naturally, accepting
Theaetetus' definition of know
>> I would certainly like to read the book - I managed a bit the Lille
>> thesis (with my French), but it was hard going and I think I only
>> understood the stuff because we have had many discussions here on the
>> list - so it was easy to "translate". I am not so sure I can manage
>> the
>> h
Günther and Bruno,
am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study all
those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and could
even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the next 30 or so
years...
Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS
Dear Günther,
> thanks for the good references, I will integrate them on the resource
> page (or on a separate page).
>
> Some of these books I have already read (Boolos),
You mean read with pencil and paper? Machine's theology has no more
secret for you? Have you read the Plotinus paper?
On 28 Jan 2009, at 18:07, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
>> theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. Rereading
>> "Conscience et Mécanisme" I realize Russell Standish was right, and
>> that
>> book should be translated in english because it contains an almost
>> complete (self
Bruno,
> theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. Rereading
> "Conscience et Mécanisme" I realize Russell Standish was right, and that
> book should be translated in english because it contains an almost
> complete (self-contained) explanation of logic (for the physicists),
> incl
Dear Bruno,
thanks for the good references, I will integrate them on the resource
page (or on a separate page).
Some of these books I have already read (Boolos), others are on my list
(Rogers).
Smullyan's Forever Undecided is unfortunately out of print, but I am on
the lookout for used copie
Günther,
AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or
recursively enumerable theories, of machine. Those machines or
theories must be rich enough. In practice this means their theorems or
beliefs are close for induction.This is the work of Gödel and
followers, notably Löb
Goldblatt 1993, Mathematics of Modality
this book is available online:
http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/detail?fileID=458253745
mirek
>> Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Modality-Center-Language-Information/dp/1881526240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1
I will think about it. Somehow, the "best" layman intro to UDA and
AUDA are in this list. The first 15-step version of UDA was a reply to
Russell Standish a long time ago. UDA is the logical guide to AUDA,
which is just a deeper second pass on UDA.
AUDA *is* UDA explained to the "dummy", wit
Hi Bruno,
>> Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality
> Note that it is advanced stuff for people familiarized with
> mathematical logic (it presupposes Mendelson's book, or Boolos &
> Jeffrey).
>
> Two papers in that book are "part" of AUDA: the UDA explain to the
> universal machine, and her o
Hi Günther,
> The paper is not online, but I found it in this book which is at our
> University Library, maybe interesting also for other people:
>
> Goldblatt, Mathematics of Modality
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Modality-Center-Language-Information/dp/1881526240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=
Hi Bruno,
ok, I have not yet had the time to study modal logic (it is on my list,
but intermediate future). Thanks for the Goldblatt reference.
The paper is not online, but I found it in this book which is at our
University Library, maybe interesting also for other people:
Goldblatt, Mathemat
On 17 Jan 2009, at 07:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is
>> welcome :-))
>>
>> Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your
>> technical work?
>>
>> May I refer to the following
On 16 Jan 2009, at 22:04, Günther Greindl wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is
> welcome :-))
>
> Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your
> technical work?
Yes. The hypostases, with p restrict to the Sigma-1 sentence
Günther Greindl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-))
>
> Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your
> technical work?
>
> May I refer to the following two paragraphs?:
>
> We can read here:
> http://plato.stanford.e
Hi all,
the question goes primarily to Bruno but all other input is welcome :-))
Bruno, you said you have already arrived at a quantum logic in your
technical work?
May I refer to the following two paragraphs?:
We can read here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/
The Reconstructi
26 matches
Mail list logo
