On 03 Dec 2010, at 18:56, Brian Tenneson wrote:
I'm going to try to concentrate on each issue, one per post. Let me
say again that your feedback is absolutely invaluable to my work.
In an earlier post you say something that implies the following:
Suppose M1, M2, and M3 are mathematical struct
On 03 Dec 2010, at 19:35, Brian Tenneson wrote:
If there is a "TOE," I would expect it to be pretty lengthy and
complicated. The "TOE" would basically be a conjunction of all
answers to all questions.
But can this even be done in human terms? Wouldn't there be
infinitely many questions (e.g.
So is it impossible that there are enough redundancies in an
infinitely long statement of a TOE to make it into an equivalent,
finite document?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l.
On Dec 4, 2:52 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> I just said that if M1 < M2, then M1 [=] M2. This means that M2 needs
> higher order logical formula to be distinguished from M1.
> Elementary embeddings (<) are a too much strong notion of model
> theory. It is used in context where we want use non s
4 matches
Mail list logo
