-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series (december 2009)
On 09 Dec 2009, at 01:42, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
This is a stupid question but I'm hoping it contains the
kernel of an idea
-
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series (december 2009)
On 09 Dec 2009, at 01:42, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
This is a stupid question but I'm hoping it contains the kernel
On 09 Dec 2009, at 01:42, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
This is a stupid question but I'm hoping it contains the
kernel of an idea. Since logic is based on a few common definitions,
do you really need all these complicated steps and permutations to
prove a theory? Why can't you show
, logical statements?
marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list List
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series (december 2009)
Hi,
We may be at a cross of the seventh step and Why
Hi,
We may be at a cross of the seventh step and Why I am I? thread.
Chose your favorite universal system.
Like LISP, FORTRAN, the combinators, the diophantine equations, etc.
Enumerate in lexicographical order the expressions corresponding to
the algorithms of the partial computable function
On 16 Nov 2009, at 17:45, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Nov 2009, at 19:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
But how is the first person point of view defined? Can this
theory
tell me how many persons exist at a given time?
I come back on this. The question how many persons? is
On 11 Nov 2009, at 19:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
But how is the first person point of view defined? Can this theory
tell me how many persons exist at a given time?
I come back on this. The question how many persons? is a question
which remains very hard in the mechanist theory.
To answer
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Nov 2009, at 19:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
But how is the first person point of view defined? Can this theory
tell me how many persons exist at a given time?
I come back on this. The question how many persons? is a question
which remains very hard in the
On 10 Nov 2009, at 19:29, Brent Meeker wrote:
But this seems like creating a problem where none existed. The
factorial is a certain function, the brain performs a certain
function.
Now you say we will formalize the concept of function in order to
study
what the brain does and
Rex Allen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
That's why I say I take it as an ansatz - Let's consider
all possible computations and see if we can pick out physics and the
brain and consciousness from them.
I would think that it's
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2009, at 19:29, Brent Meeker wrote:
But this seems like creating a problem where none existed. The
factorial is a certain function, the brain performs a certain function.
Now you say we will formalize the concept of function in order to study
what the
On 11 Nov 2009, at 19:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2009, at 19:29, Brent Meeker wrote:
But this seems like creating a problem where none existed. The
factorial is a certain function, the brain performs a certain
function.
Now you say we will formalize the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Nov 2009, at 20:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi,
Let us come back on the seven step thread.
Let me recall the initial motivation. The movie graph argument (cf the
MGA thread) shows that it is senseless to attach consciousness to the
physical
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
That's why I say I take it as an ansatz - Let's consider
all possible computations and see if we can pick out physics and the
brain and consciousness from them.
I would think that it's pretty much a given that out
Hi,
Let us come back on the seven step thread.
Let me recall the initial motivation. The movie graph argument (cf the
MGA thread) shows that it is senseless to attach consciousness to the
physical activity of a brain or a computer.
If we keep the computational thesis for the cognitive
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi,
Let us come back on the seven step thread.
Let me recall the initial motivation. The movie graph argument (cf the
MGA thread) shows that it is senseless to attach consciousness to the
physical activity of a brain or a computer.
If we keep the computational
-
From: John Mikes
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s.
The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who did not
shave
Hi John, hi Marty,
On 10 Oct 2009, at 21:47, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s.
The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who
did not shave themselves (and shaved all). So for (Q #1) in the 1st
vriant
she(?) was a female,
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s.
The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who did not
shave themselves (and shaved all). So for (Q #1) in the 1st vriant
*she(?)* was a female, unless *he(?)* was a beardless male
(and the 'all' refers to only the
: John Mikes
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
Bruno, we had similar puzzles in middle school in the 30s.
The barber could not shave himself because he shaved only those who did not
shave themselves (and shaved
Hi,
I am so buzy that I have not the time to give long explanations, so I
give here a short exercise and a subject of reflexion instead.
Exercise:
There is Tyrannic country where by law it was forbidden for any man to
have a beard.
And there is village, in that country, and it is said that
Hi,
I sum up the definition and results seen so far.
N = {0, 1, 2, ...}, the set of natural numbers (also called positive
integers).
N^N = {f such that f is a function from N to N} = the set of functions
from N to N.
Universal language: a language in which we can describe formally how
On 18 Sep 2009, at 17:00, I wrote:
On the set N^N of all functions from N to N, Cantor diagonal shows
that N^N is non enumerable.
On the set N-N-comp, the diagonal shows that N^N-comp, although
enumerable is non computably enumerable.
OK? take the time to swallow this, and ask
On 17 Sep 2009, at 18:17, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
it is not very convincing when you dissect my sentences and
interject assuring remarks on statements to come later in the
sentence, negating such remarks in advance, on a different basis.
I argued that - upon what you (and the
Yes, Bruno, it helps - however: I did not want to put you into any apology!
The list is a free communication among free spirits and controversy is part
of it.
What I 'read' in your reply still sticks within 'math' and my principal
point is: the image represented is STILL what a human mind MAY
I give the answer.
On 17 Sep 2009, at 16:27, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If it is OK, in the next post we begin to address the computability
issue. I give you an anticipative exercise or subject reflection.
This is a deep exercise. Its
Bruno,
I loved your post on the square root of 2!
(I also laughed at it, to stay at the puns).
You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how inadequate
and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha).
Statement: *if square-rooting is right* (allegedly, and admittedly) *then
THERE IS
Hi John,
On 17 Sep 2009, at 15:14, John Mikes wrote:
You went out of your way and did not save efforts to prove how
inadequate and wrong (y)our number system is. (ha ha).
Wrong ?
Statement: if square-rooting is right (allegedly, and admittedly)
Well, it is certainly right if we
On 16 Sep 2009, at 18:12, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If it is OK, in the next post we begin to address the computability
issue. I give you an anticipative exercise or subject reflection.
This is a deep exercise. Its solution leads to the notion of
universal function and universal
Dear Bruno,
it is not very convincing when you dissect my sentences and interject
assuring remarks on statements to come later in the sentence, negating such
remarks in advance, on a different basis.
I argued that - upon what you (and the rest of the multimillion
mathematicians past and
I give the solution.
On 15 Sep 2009, at 16:30, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK? Take your time to compare with the last post, and to understand
what happens.
Training exercise: prove, using that notation, that 2^N is non
enumerable. Hint: use a slightly different g.
2^N is non enumerable.
Hi,
I will introduce notation for functions, and prove again Cantor
theorem, without making any diagram.
I will lazily write the diagram
0 = 34, 6, 678, 0, 6, 77, 8, 9, 39, 67009, ...
1 = 0, 677, 901, 1, 67, 8, 768765, 56, 9, 9, ...
2 = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128,
On 09 Sep 2009, at 09:21, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Next post: Cantor theorem(s). There is NO bijection between N and
N^N. I will perhaps show that there is no bijection between N and
{0, 1}^N. The proof can easily be adapted to show that there is no
bijection between N and many sets.
This is the last post before we proof Cantor theorem. It is an antic
interlude. We are about 2000 years back in time.
The square root of 2.
It is a number x such that x^2 = 2. It is obviously smaller than 2 and
bigger than 1. OK? It cannot be a natural number. But could it be a
fraction?
Hi,
I want to add something.
I said recently to John that the excluded middle principle should be
seen as a tolerance-of-ignorance principle. Actually this will play an
important role later, and it justifies the arithmetical realism:
what it is, and why it is important.
Let me illustrate
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Next: I will do some antic mathematic, and prove the irrationality
of the square root of two, for many reasons, including some thought
about what is a proof. And then I will prove Cantor theorem. Then I
will define what is a computable
Subject: Re: The seven step series
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Any question, any comment? I guess that I am too quick for some,
too slow for others.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
On 31 Aug 2009, at 19:31, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Any question, any comment? I guess that I am too quick for some,
too slow for others.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ouh la la ... Mirek,
You may be right, but I am not sure. You may verify if this was not in
a intuitionist context. Without the excluded middle principle, you may
have to use countable choice in some situation where classical logic
does not, but I am not sure.
On 02 Sep 2009, at 17:16, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ouh la la ... Mirek,
You may be right, but I am not sure. You may verify if this was not
in
a intuitionist context. Without the excluded middle principle, you
may
have to use countable choice in some situation
Hi Bruno,
I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC) assumed
implicitly somewhere here or is it obvious that there is no need for it
(so far)?
Thanks!
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
Hi Mirek,
On 01 Sep 2009, at 12:25, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
I am puzzled by one thing. Is the Axiom of dependent choice (DC)
assumed
implicitly somewhere here or is it obvious that there is no need for
it
(so far)?
I don't see where I would have use it, and I don't think I will use
The reason why I am puzzled is that I was recently told that in order to
prove that
* the union of countably many countable sets is countable
one needs to use at least the Axiom of Countable Choice (+ ZF, of
course). The same is true in order to show that
* a set A is infinite if and only if
Ouh la la ... Mirek,
You may be right, but I am not sure. You may verify if this was not in
a intuitionist context. Without the excluded middle principle, you may
have to use countable choice in some situation where classical logic
does not, but I am not sure.
I know that in intuitionist
I give the solution to the last exercises.
On 26 Aug 2009, at 19:06, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi,
I sum up, a little bit, and then I go quickly, just to provide some
motivation for the sequel.
We have seen the notion of set. We have seen examples of finite sets
and infinite sets.
For
Hi,
I sum up, a little bit, and then I go quickly, just to provide some
motivation for the sequel.
We have seen the notion of set. We have seen examples of finite sets
and infinite sets.
For example the sets
A = {0, 1, 2},
B = {2, 3}
are finite.
The set N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is
m.a. wrote:
a towel into the ring.
I simply don't have the sort of mind that takes to juggling letters,
numbers and symbols in increasingly fine-grained, complex arrangements.
[...]
Marty,
If I can ask, I'd be really interested what do you think of this
socratic experiment
.
marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Mirek Dobsicek m.dobsi...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
Marty,
If I can ask, I'd be really interested what do you think of this
socratic
On 21 Aug 2009, at 01:24, meekerdb @dslextreme.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi,
I give the solution of the first of the last exercises.
...
This motivates the definition of the following function from N to N,
called factorial.
,
marty a.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
On 21 Aug 2009, at 01:24, meekerdb
: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
On 21 Aug 2009, at 01:24, meekerdb @dslextreme.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi
Hi,
I give the solution of the first of the last exercises.
I reason aloud. I go slowly for those who did not get some math
courses, or just forget them. I cannot stress the importance of the
notion of bijection in the mathematical discovery of the universal
machine (the quote means
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi,
I give the solution of the first of the last exercises.
...
This motivates the definition of the following function from N to N,
called factorial.
factorial(0) = 1, and factorial(n) = n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3) * ... *1,
Hi,
Just a reminder, for me, and perhaps some training for you. In
preparation to the mathematical discovery of the universal machine.
exercises:
1) count the number of bijections from a set A to itself. (= card{x
such that x is bijection from A to A})
2) describe some canonical
On 19 Aug 2009, at 23:03, meekerdb @dslextreme.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Hi,
Just a reminder, for me, and perhaps some training for you. In
preparation to the mathematical discovery of the universal machine.
exercises:
...
Brent,
I said: this is food for Friday and the week-end, and you provide
already the solutions!
It is OK, and you are correct. Thanks for playing.
I add short comments. I have not much time till monday, and I intend
to come back on some issues. I will comment the important recent post
by
On 12 Aug 2009, at 19:55, Bruno Marchal wrote:
1) Convince yourself that if A and B are finite sets, then there
exists a bijection between A and B if and only if card(A) = card(B).
Only you can convince yourself. I try to help by going very slowly,
but people should really mind it y
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate:
- is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian
product of N with N)
- is there a bijection between N and N^N?
You're making me think, Bruno. :-)
A bijection
There is an explicit formula that maps N onto Q.. I found it some years
back.
Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
4) Key questions for the sequel, on which you can meditate:
- is there a bijection between N and NxN? (NxN = the cartesian
product of N with N)
- is there a
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
exponentiation.
I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the
seven
step serii made a small typo
A^B - the set of all functions from A to B.
It
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
It's almost like ASCII art. Just wanted to signal that I'm following.
mirek
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
On 11 Aug 2009, at 15:32, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
3) compute { } ^ { } and card({ } ^ { })
If card(A) = n, and card(B) = m. What is
card(A^B)?
I find it neat to write | {} ^ {} | = | { {} } | = 1 :-)
You will make panic those who are not familiar with symbols!
It's almost like ASCII
On 11 Aug 2009, at 22:24, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Well, A^B is the set of functions from B to A. By definition of set
exponentiation.
I'd just like to point out that Bruno in his previous post in the
seven
step serii made a small typo
A^B - the set of all functions from A to B.
I
Hi Mirek,
On 05 Aug 2009, at 00:52, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
I've ordered the dialogue from a second-hand book shop :-) The
Stanford
encyclopedia says
Arguably, it is his (Plato) greatest work on anything.
So I'll give it a try :-)
I love that book, and it is also my favorite piece of
Bruno, just to take off some mal-deserved feathers:
I think Theaetetus has two different 'e' sounds one after the other (anybody
can pronounce him better?) and in Hungarian we have them (' e ' like in
'have' and e' like in 'take') with a 3rd variation where the accent is not
applied: a closed and
Bruno and Mirek,
concerning Theateticus vs. Theaeteticus:
in my strange linguistic background I make a difference betwee ai and ae -
the spelling in Greek and Latin of the name. As far as I know, nobody knows
for sure how did the 'ancient' Greeks pronounce their ai - maybe as the flat
'e' like
Come on Mirek: Theaetetical is an adjective I have forged from
Theatetus.
Theatetus gives 195.000 results on Google.
Theatetus wiki 4310.
Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in your
papers thus one can easily match the word Theaetetical agains it.
Let me quickly
John,
Thanks for those informations. I thought that the æ was just a
french, if not an old french, usage.
Note that when I wrote Theatetus, it is just a mispelling. I tend to
forget that second e, but your remark will help me to remind it.
Note that Miles Burnyeat, in his book The
Hi Mirek,
Long and perhaps key post.
On 04 Aug 2009, at 15:32, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
Come on Mirek: Theaetetical is an adjective I have forged from
Theatetus.
Theatetus gives 195.000 results on Google.
Theatetus wiki 4310.
Of course, after all you reference the dialogue Theaetetus in
Hi Bruno,
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Mirek,
Long and perhaps key post.
Thank you a lot for a prompt and long reply. I am digesting it :-)
Just some quick comments.
There is no shame in being ignorant. Only in staying ignorant :)
I've ordered the dialogue from a second-hand book shop :-)
On 02 Aug 2009, at 23:20, Mirek Dobsicek wrote:
I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
google gave me upon entering
Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
Well 144?
Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
list or the FOR list.
I am
I am in a good mood and a bit picky :-) Do you know how many entries
google gave me upon entering
Theaetetical -marchal -bruno
Well 144?
Good way to find my papers on that. The pages refer quickly to this
list or the FOR list.
I am sorry for the delay, I've just got back from my
On 28 Jul 2009, at 21:52, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:38, David Nyman wrote:
...
be conceived for this purpose to
be 'sequentially resolving' each 'OM-programme-step'? Indeed my
understanding is that this dovetailed sequentiality is actually a
key
On 29 Jul 2009, at 19:15, David Nyman wrote:
On 29 July, 17:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gosh, David, you are a champion for the difficult questions.
Merci maitre, but I really only meant this rhetorically!
Oh! I was a bit rhetorical myself.
On behalf of
the One
Here
2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
blasphemous.
Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
I should have use
third party, but my hands did not cooperate; when I type, they are
too quick for my brain to follow.
So
On 30 Jul 2009, at 14:00, David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Here you are very rhetorical. You could even be close to being comp-
blasphemous.
Ah, but is there comp-excommunication?
If comp is true, nature does it eventually. But it can take a long time.
This
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part and jump on the following text.
*F u n c t i o n* as I believe is - for you - the y = f(x) *form*. For me:
the *activity -* shown when plotting on a coordinate system the f(x) values
of the Y-s to the values on the x-axle resulting in a relation (curve).
Hi John, and the other.
John motivates me to explain what is a function, for a mathematician.
On 30 Jul 2009, at 17:53, John Mikes wrote:
Hi, Bruno,
let me skip the technical part
OK. But I remind you this current thread *is* technical.
and jump on the following text.
F u n c t i o n
2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Now, the question why this 1-OM and not that other one, is like the
questions:
- why do I feel myself in W, and not in M which is very natural for the
one going out at W.
- why do I feel myself in M, and not in W which is very natural for the
Ronald,
On 28 Jul 2009, at 12:51, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno:
I meant the mathematical formalism you are teaching us. When we
eventually get to the UDA steps, I wil be better able to do that
assessment.
OK.
Note that the first 6 steps have already be done recently, with Kim,
and even
SOLUTIONS
OK. I give the solution of the exercises of the last session, on the
cartesian product of sets.
I recall the definition of the product A X B.
A X B= {(x,y) such that x belongs to A and y belongs to B}
I gave A = {0, 1}, and B = {a, b}.
In this case, A X B = {(0,a), (0,
On 28 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
snip
David Nyman wrote:
However I have a wacky intuition: despite the platonic criterion of
co-existence, 1-person experience of the temporal dynamism (i.e.
sequentiality) of the
On 29 July, 17:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Gosh, David, you are a champion for the difficult questions.
Merci maitre, but I really only meant this rhetorically! On behalf of
the One I assume that the cavalcade would be the preferable
alternative. I like your answer though.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
snip
David Nyman wrote:
However I have a wacky intuition: despite the platonic criterion of
co-existence, 1-person experience of the temporal dynamism (i.e.
On 28 Jul 2009, at 02:56, David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/27 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Actually, the real axiom is a self-duplicability principle. According
to the duplicability, you will have the whole of AUDA remaining
correct and even complete, at the propositional level, for many
-- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
Marty,
Brent wrote:
On 21 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
Take all strings of length 2
00 01
2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
You could say, for
example, at any point to go further you would need a deeper grasp of
x, but for now, it has this or that role or function in the overall
story - or something like that. I'd be very grateful - and
attentive.
I think that you
,
Chief Ignoramus
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
We have discovered SBIJECTION between
David Nyman wrote:
2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
You could say, for
example, at any point to go further you would need a deeper grasp of
x, but for now, it has this or that role or function in the overall
story - or something like that. I'd be very grateful - and
attentive.
On 28 Jul 2009, at 13:38, David Nyman wrote:
Actually, I do follow the first six steps of the UD reasoning; my own
'beam me up, Scotty' reasoning had led me to similar conclusions. So,
no problem with this. But I do have trouble grasping what is, I
think, a different aspect of the
On 28 Jul 2009, at 17:36, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
I have searched my notes for an exposition of BIJECTION
and found only one mention in an early email which promises to
define it in a later lesson. Do you have a reference to that lesson
or perhaps an instant explanation of it?
On 27 Jul 2009, at 03:04, m.a. wrote:
Bruno,
I am indeed ready to pursue further and since we'll be
covering both topics anyhow, I would prefer that you choose which
would be the most natural next step for us.
Hmm... The problem is that it is natural or not according to
On 27 Jul 2009, at 16:25, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 July, 09:46, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
... yet, the shadows of braids and links(*) appear somehow in the two
matter hypostases, and this in a context where space (not juts time)
has to be a self-referential context, in that
-- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: The seven step series
Marty,
Brent wrote:
On 21 Jul 2009, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
Take all strings of length 2
00 01 10
Hi,
OK, I will come back on the square root of 2 later.
We have talked on sets.
Sets have elements, and elements of a set define completely the set,
and a set is completely defined by its elements.
Example: here is a set of numbers {1, 2, 3}
and a set of sets of numbers {{1, 2}, {3}, { }}.
2009/7/27 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
Actually, the real axiom is a self-duplicability principle. According
to the duplicability, you will have the whole of AUDA remaining
correct and even complete, at the propositional level, for many
gods (non emulable entities). The theology of the
://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125645.800-you-are-made-of-spacetime.html?full=true
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Seven Step Series
I ask to all those who told me
On 24 Jul 2009, at 17:00, Bruno Marchal wrote:
1 divided by any number bigger than 1 is always a number little than
1. With decimal they begin by 0.something.
I mean SMALLER THAN 1.
Sorry.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Bruno,
One of my fundamental problems evidently has been a misconception
of the use of exponents (see below in bold).
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Seven Step
, it will be an opportunity to make revision,
Best to all of you,
Bruno
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Seven Step Series
On 23 Jul 2009, at 05:44, m.a. wrote:
if a is a number, usually
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
