Last post before the key post (was OM = SIGMA_1) 1bis

2007-11-29 Thread Bruno Marchal
Mirek, Le 28-nov.-07, à 17:32, Mirek Dobsicek a écrit : Hi Bruno, I'm ready. Luckily, it is not long time ago, I've received my university degree in CS, so it was rather easy to follow :-) Sincerely, Mirek Thanks for telling me that you are ready. Now I feel a bit guilty because

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Quentin Anciaux skrev: Hi, Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event, according to the rules. And after that event

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : Quentin Anciaux skrev: Hi, Le Wednesday 28 November 2007 09:56:17 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and rules for that model, then one event will

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : There is a difference between unlimited and infinite. Unlimited just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite. If you add something to a finite set, then the new set will

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : There is a difference between unlimited and infinite. Unlimited just says that it has no limit, but everything is still

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure and making that set finite. Ok then the set R is also finite ? Yes. The only possible way to talk about

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure and making that set finite. Ok then the set R is

RE: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:25:54 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Quentin Anciaux skrev: Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:52:36 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit : Quentin Anciaux skrev: What is the production rules of the noset R ? How do you define the set R? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_real_numbers Choose your

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Jesse Mazer skrev: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As soon as you talk about the set N, then you are making a closure and making that set finite. Why is that? How do you define the word set? The only possible way to talk about something without limit, such as natural

RE: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:55:20 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi Jesse Mazer skrev: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As soon as you talk about the set N, then

RE: Bijections (was OM = SIGMA1)

2007-11-29 Thread Jesse Mazer
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:01:38 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bijections (was OM = SIGMA1) Bruno Marchal skrev: But infinite ordinals can be different, and still have the same cardinality. I have given

Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-11-29 Thread John Mikes
Marc, please, allow me to write in plain language - not using those fancy words of these threads. Some time ago when the discussion was in commonsensically more understandable vocabulary, I questioned something similar to Günther, as pertaining to numbers - the alleged generators of 'everything'