RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

of words as I can muster. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:25 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

; "The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" >>>> condition. They >>>> each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this >>>> stability >>>> distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)].&q

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

[call them eS(i)]." >>> >>> I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for >>> many years >>> in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was >>> not as >>> clear as it could have been. >>> >

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your >> discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this >> before. >> >> Yours >> >> Hal >> >> -Original Message- >> From: everything-l...@googlegroups.c

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

g-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? > > > Hal, > > I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I >

RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line:

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

bols. > > 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 to my approach. Is it a UD? &

RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

to my approach. Is it a UD? 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? --- That is not what I actually said. I indicated that there were no restrictions on the copy

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

Hal > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com > [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal > Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Revisions t

RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

erything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should

Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a comp

Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?

Hi everyone: I have revised my model somewhat and think it might now be a form of UD. DEFINITIONS: Distinction: That which enables separation [such as red from other colors]. Devisor: That which encloses a quantity of distinction. Some divisors are collections of divisors. A de