Saibal Mitra wrote:
>
>
> If the plenitude is a set, then the power-set of the plenitude is not
> contained in the plenitude.
>
> Saibal
>
True, but this may not be a problem. For example, the Schmidhuber
plenitude is the ensemble of all descriptions. Assuming this is a set,
then is the power
There are many different types of plenitude. For the sake of
precision, I will be referring to the Schmidhuber plenitude, ie "all
descriptions".
I think we're mixing levels here. Individual descriptions needn't be
consistent. Whilst the description "The subset of the plenitude that
contains all
I have posted a new rather expanded draft of the FAQ. at
http://www.connix.com/~hjr/everythinglistFAQ.html
I am very interested in comments on the general structure before I get much
further along. Changes get harder the more developed it becomes.
I am still using my own model to step it up,
Saey whaet?
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote:
> Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is
> unrelated to 'my current' OM. But since all OMs exist I can be sure that
> there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this merde'.
You are James.
Bruno is Bruno.
Why
5 matches
Mail list logo