Hi Marty,
On 03 Jul 2009, at 00:18, m.a. wrote:
> Bruno,
> Comments and questions are interspersed below.
>
> marty
> Just tell me if you agree. I agree and can't understand
On 02 Jul 2009, at 20:48, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> How does Tegmark's Physical Existence = Mathematical Existence
> hypothesis fit or not fit into this?
It fits well, I mean better than anythings else (except perhaps
Wheeler), but yet ... not so well. What is common, is the open-
On 02 Jul 2009, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
>> Brian,
>> I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
>>
>> /"In modern cosmology, a /
>>
>> /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical
>> universes"/
>>
>> that pissed me off: 'possible' in o
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> ...
> Due to Dirac, in Quantum Mechanics, I tend to believe that brackets
> are "<" and ">". parentheses are "(" and ")". I call "{" and "}"
> accolades, but perhaps they are called bracket. The terms are not
> important as far as we understand each other. How would you c
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 02 Jul 2009, at 21:37, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>> John Mikes wrote:
>>
>>> Brian,
>>> I started to read the text and found the 1st sentence:
>>>
>>> /"In modern cosmology, a /
>>>
>>> /multiverse is defined to be a collection of possible physical
>>> universes"/
New comments in italics.
For example {1,2} INTERSECTION {2, 7} is equal to some set, actually the set
{2}. OK?..No!
Why not the sets {1,2,7} if INTERSECTION means
BOTH?
Ah,
6 matches
Mail list logo
