Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are machine,
mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to numbers. Of course
we have to assume all elementary arithmetical truth, like 17 is prime. Do
you doubt them?
Roger: When
On Sep 24, 2011, at 1:12 AM, Roger Granet roger...@yahoo.com wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are
machine, mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to
numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary
On 23 Sep 2011, at 19:13, Pzomby wrote:
On Sep 23, 8:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 23 Sep 2011, at 07:37, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. Yes, I am pretty much a materialist/physicalist.
So, you cannot defend the idea that the brain (or whatever
On 24 Sep 2011, at 08:12, Roger Granet wrote:
Bruno,
Hi. My responses are:
Mathematical truth is in the mind of persons. And assuming we are
machine, mathematical truth is in the mind of numbers relatively to
numbers. Of course we have to assume all elementary arithmetical
truth,
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is
raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi has a value which no human has
determined, as determinig it requires infinite time and memory. If only those
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when
Euler's number is raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1?
Pi has a value which no human has determined,
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that when Euler's number is
raised to the power of (2*Pi*i) the result is 1? Pi
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 12:07 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
A final consideration: do you believe Pi has such a value that
On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
(next installment)
On Sep 23, 3:17 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 23 Sep 2011, at 02:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It is a comparison made by a third
person observer of a human presentation against their expectations of
said human presentation. Substitution 'level' similarly
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 1:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:22 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 9/24/2011 11:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sep 24, 2011, at 12:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
OK, so I've read the UDA and I 'get' it, but at the moment I simply
can't accept that it is anything like a 'proof'. I keep reading Bruno
making statements like If we are machine-emulable, then physics is
necessarily reducible to number psychology, but to me there remain
serious flaws, not in the
On 9/24/2011 7:20 PM, Pierz wrote:
OK, so I've read the UDA and I 'get' it, but at the moment I simply
can't accept that it is anything like a 'proof'. I keep reading Bruno
making statements like If we are machine-emulable, then physics is
necessarily reducible to number psychology, but to me
13 matches
Mail list logo
