On Jul 9, 7:47 pm, "David Nyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/07/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Because
> > everything that happens in A-Universe will also happen in B-Universe.
> > All objects in A-Universe obey the laws
(Reposted because of some techical problems...)
On Jul 7, 2:00 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>
> > David Nyman skrev:
> >> You have however drawn our attention to something very interest
LizR skrev 2014-10-01 01:44:
On 1 October 2014 04:23, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
mailto:multiplecit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Ultrafinitism then: "set of all numbers is finite" and whatever
weird logic they need to have numbers obey some weirder upper
limit, and I heard they issue fines a
other peoples subconsciouses. Then one persons subconscious is
affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.
--
Torgny
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my
subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious. Then my subconscious
talks
On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote:
I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And
my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
When I pray, I t
ones"
(beyond our ever changing concept of a system of our "physical"
explanations?
*No, God have no supernatural powers. God can only do what a human
being can do.*
John M
--
Torgny
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&quo
You do not need anything continuous. When you look at a movie, you are
shown 24 pictures every second, but you feel like it is a continuous
movie. But in reality it is just 24 discrete events every second.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You r
S-1, so D(x(n)) = x(n+1) - x(n).
What do you think, is this a good starting point for handling the
mathematics of the discrete space-time?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ev
f(0)*g(0), f(1)*g(1), f(2)*g(2), ... , f(N-1)*g(N-1)].
and to apply a function f on a function g then becomes:
f(g) = [f(g(0)), f(g(1)), f(g(2)), ... , f(g(N-1))].
Exercise: Show that the extended Leibniz rule in the discrete
mathematics: D(f*g) = f*D(g) + D(f)*g + D(f)*D(g), is
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
>
> Exercise: Show that the extended Leibniz rule in the discrete
> mathematics: D(f*g) = f*D(g) + D(f)*g + D(f)*D(g), is correct!
>
Another way to see both form of the Leibniz rule is in the graphical set
theory, where you represent the sets by circle
t think of me. I
am an entity that have all the appearance of a human, but I have no
consciousness...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
>
> What I want to know is what result you will get if you start from the
> axiom that *everything in universe is finite*.
>
One important function in Quantum Theory is the harmonic oscillator. So
I want to know: What is the corresponding function
alculus ), that look like exactly
what I am looking for. The Umbral calculus seems to be a good candidate
for a tool for handling discrete space-time!
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
our own consciousness, by
> becoming someone else you can't identify with.
I can say "yes" to the doctor, because it will not be any difference for
me, I will still be a zombie afterwards...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You receive
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 06 May 2009, at 11:35, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> Someone unconscious cannot doubt either ... (A zombie can only fake
>>> doubts)
>>>
>> Yes, you are right. I can only f
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>
>>> you are human, all right?
>>>
>> I look exactly as a human. When you look at me, you will not be
>> able to
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> Hi,
>
> 2009/5/8 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> I was an ultrafinitist before, but I have changed my mind. Now I accept
>> that you can say that the natural numbers are unlimited. I only deny
>> actual infinities. The set of all natural numbers
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 08 May 2009, at 19:15, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> On 07 May 2009, at 18:29, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes it is right. There is no infinity of natural numbers. But
1 belongs to the set of natural numbers,
that is does N+1 belongs to {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, se
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> 4) The set of all natural numbers. This set is hard to define, yet I
>>> hope you agree we can describe it by the infin
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2009/6/3 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>
>>> On 02 Jun 2009, at 19:43, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bruno Marchal skrev:
>>>>
>>>>
atement is true. Because if you call the Biggest
natural number B, then you can describe N as = {1, 2, 3, ..., B}. If
you take the complement of N you will get the empty set. This set have
no least element, but still N has a biggest element.
In your statement you are presupposing that N has n
N of natural numbers. And from that you can define the
successor operator. The value set of the successor operator will be a
new set, that contains one more element than the set N of natural
numbers. This new element is BIGGEST+1, that is strictly bigger than
all natural numbers.
--
Torgny
an being in the
future. Amongst all those explicit numbers there will be one that is
the largest. But this "largest number" is not an explicit number.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
Brian Tenneson skrev:
>
>
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> It is impossible to create a set where the successor of every element is
>> inside the set, there must always be an element where the successor of
>> that element is outside the set.
>>
> I disagree.
Brian Tenneson skrev:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus <mailto:tor...@dsv.su.se>> wrote:
>
>
> Brian Tenneson skrev:
> >
> >
> > Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> >> It is impossible to create a set where the s
Kory Heath skrev:
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> How do you handle the Russell paradox with the set of all sets that
>> does
>> not contain itself? Does that set contain itself or not?
>>
>> My answer is that that set does no
n you need to provide a
> definition of "natural number" that would explain why this is the case.
It depends upon how you define "natural number". If you define it by: n
is a natural number if and only if n belongs to N, the set of all
natural numbers, then of course BI
implicite "all": The full sentence
would be: For all n in the universe hold that n is a natural number if
n=1 or if n is equal to some other natural number+1. And you may now be
able to understand, that if the number of objects in the universe is
finite, then this sentence wil
about.
For you to be able to use the word "all", you must define the "domain"
of that word. If you do not define the domain, then it will be
impossible for me and all other humans to understand what you are
talking about.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~
u have
> a third alternative besides spelling out every member or giving an
> abstract rule?
You have to spell out every member. Because in a *rule* you are
(implicitely) using this type of "universe", and you will then get a
circular definition. When y
justification for.
What do you mean by "some particular symbol-string"?
I suppose that you mean by this is: If you take any particular
symbol-string from this universe, then no one will ever have cause to be
unsure about whether this symbol-string belongs in this universe. So
you are de
ly if A is a set.
And we know that A is a set. So from this we can deduce:
A beongs to A.
---
Quentin, what do you think? Is this deduction legal or illegal?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you a
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2009/6/13 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> What do you think about the following deduction? Is it legal or illegal?
>> ---
>> Define the set A of all sets as:
>>
>> For all x holds that x belongs to A if and only if x is
et B? In both cases you are defining a set by giving a
property that all members of the set must fulfill.
Why is the deduction legal for set A, but illegal for set B? There is
the same type of deduction in both places, you are just making a
substitution for the all quantificator in both cases.
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> Torgny,
>
> I agree with Quentin.
> You are just showing that the naive notion of set is inconsistent.
> Cantor already knew that, and this is exactly what forced people to
> develop axiomatic theories. So depending on which theory of set you
>
ical objects does not exist in our universe, in this form of
existence. You can not find the "17" object anywhere inside our universe.
Then we have the general form of existence saying that our universe
exists because it is a mathematical possibility.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~--
Bruno Marchal skrev:
> Le 22-juil.-09, à 10:27, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
>
>
> Rex Allen skrev:
>
> Brent:
>
> Do these mathematical objects "really" exist? I'd say they
> have
> logico-math
Bruno Marchal skrev:
>
> On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What do you think about the GoL-universes? You can look at some of
>> those at http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ . If you have an initial
>> condition and you have an unlimited board, t
n FOR, I can conceive that I wake up and realize that
> quark, planet, galaxies and even my body were not real. I cannot
> conceive that I wake up and realize that my consciousness is not real.
>
When I woke up this morning, I realized th
s nor computers can be conscious.
(The alternative: Computers, but not humans can be conscious, is not
needed...))
--
Torgny Tholerus
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
me
way. But we can not get in touch with any of the other Universes, so
from our point of view does the other Universes not exist.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> Mark Peaty skrev:
>>
>>> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'?
>>>
>> 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'.
>>
>> Our U
t (diagonal
pixels)
I mean there's some irrational distance out there!
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is
finite, and the universe itself is finite. Infinity is a logically
impossible concept.
--
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete.
Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is
finite, and the universe its
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Infinity is a logically impossible concept.
I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some
early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am
not convinced. I think that
ain many
exact copies of our own part of the universe...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@goo
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>
>> I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3
>> pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist.
>>
> Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually
&
a true subset of the set, because they only see the visible part of the
set, and there it is true that there is such a mapping there. But what
happens inside the cloud they don't see. They don't see that there are
mappings missing in the end
oblem I have not yet solved, is how to get all directions isomorph
if you have a discrete space-time. Maybe someone on this this list can
help me solve that problem?
Max, a suggestion to you is to skip the concept of "infinity" totally.
Your reasoning will be true even
a.)
So when you look for the mathematical system that is our universe, you
have to look at the mathematical systems that have a special unit
length and a special unit time.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message beca
Stathis Papaioannou skrev:
On 01/06/07, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I behave AS IF I am conscious
because the natural
selection
has favored that type of behavior.
Which implies you really are conscious, because otherwise why would
evolution have g
t; that it is ethically wrong to
torture objects, that behave as if they were conscious, then the
probability that somebody will torture me decreases.
This is all ethics is about: Trying to avoid stimulating the pain center
in our brains.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~--
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 01-juin-07, à 14:35, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
The only thing that exists is a lot of protons, neutrons,
and
electrons reacting with each other inside my brain.
Are you *sure*?
By the way, are you more sure about proton than about your belief in
proton
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 01-juin-07, à 18:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
When I am tortured, my pain center in my
brain will be stimulated.
This
will cause me to try to avoid this situation (being tortured). One
(good) way to archive this is to start talking about "ethics&qu
not 'meaningless'.");
}
You can make more complicated programs, that is not so obvious, by
"genetic programming". But it will take rather long time. The nature
had to work for over a billion years to make the human beings. But with
genetic programming you will s
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 04-juin-07, à 14:10, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Pain is the same thing as the pain center in the brain
being
stimulated.
If you are really unconscious or not conscious, you could say this,
indeed, but I hardly believe you are unconscious.
In the best case
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
When I look at you (in 3rd person view), I see that you
are
constructed in exactly the same way as I am. So I know why you say
that you are conscious. I know nothing sure about you, but the most
probable conclusion is
behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural selection will favour that type of behaviour.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Friday 08 June 2007 17:37:06 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What is the problem?
If a computer behaves as if it knows anything, what is the problem with
that? That type of behaviour increases the probability for the computer
to survive, so the natural
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev:
What is the subjective experience then?
The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can
make computers show the same sort of behavior, if the computers are
enough complicated.
--
Torgny Tholerus
On 6/8/07, Torgny
Tholerus <[EM
Mark Peaty skrev:
> MP: There is possibly a loose end or two here and perhaps
> clarification is needed, yet again:
>
> * Or this could conceivably be construed as a 'state of grace'
> in that Torgny is operating with no mental capacity being wasted
> on self
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 07-juin-07, à 15:47, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that
totally deny
the existence of the consciousness?
An eliminativist.
"Eliminativist" is not a good term for persons like me, because that
term im
is not conscious. Also if you're not
conscious, there is no 'me', no 'I', so there exists no 'person like
you' because then you're not a person.
Sure, but Torgny is just displaying the person-like behaviour of claiming to
be a person.
Yes, in this
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> 2007/6/14, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> If a rock shows the same behavior as a human being, then you should be able
>> to use the same words ("know", believe", "think") to describe this
>> behaviour.
&
computer, you can see that there is no "subjective
experience", there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting
with each other.
There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first
person experience.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~--
>
> On Tuesday 19 June 2007 11:37:09 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some
>> sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective
>> experience
>> of first person", I c
s to survive. Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 16:52:12 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Consciouslike behaviour is good for a species to survive. Therefore
human beings show that type of behaviour.
I don't know what is consciouslike behaviour without consciousness i
subscribe to or know of other
> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.
>
Both justifications are true. All mathematical possible universes
exist. (Game of Life is one possibility...) But this theory doesn't
say anything about our universe. So the informat
-Universe pushes the same buttons on
their computers as we do in our A-Universe.
Questions:
Is B-Universe possible?
If we interview an object in B-Universe, what will that object answer,
if we ask it: "Are you conscious?"?
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
about how to
spell that word (where to put all those "h":s...), so I included the
thoughts in "all that kind of stuff". The B-Universe should not include
any thouths(!). The B-Universe should be a strictly materialistic Universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~---
here is no observer integral to that
Universe.
The same is true about the B-Universe. You can look at it as an
outside observer.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything L
s with observers, and we
are specially interested in our own universe. But otherwise there is
noting special with our universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything Li
David Nyman skrev:
> You're right, we must distinguish zombies. The kind I have in mind
> are the kind that Torgny proposes, where 'everything is the same' as
> for a human, except that 'there's nothing it is like' to be such a
> person. My key point
Just in the same
way that we can look at a GoL-universe. So we in the A-Universe can
look at the objects in B-Universe, and see what they are doing.
One way to interview the objects in B-Universe is to do interviewing in
the A-Universe. If A-Torgny is interviewing A-David in the A-Universe,
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 05-juil.-07, à 14:19, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
David Nyman skrev:
You have however drawn our attention to something very interesting and
important IMO. This concerns the necessary entailment of 'existence'.
1. Th
ules of our universe decide what our
universe will look like tomorrow.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to
t is a non-reflexive world, I can not
see anything reflexive in that universe.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email t
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I agree with you (despite a notion as "universe" is
not primitive in my
opinion, unless you mean it a bit like the logician's notion of model
per
?
>
Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A
model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a
GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots,
but still there will hold the same relations in both thes
Brent Meeker skrev:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-07, à 17:41, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
...
Our universe is the result of some set of rules. The interesting
thing is to discover the specific rules that span our universe.
Assuming comp, I don&#
Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>> That is exactly what I wanted to say. You don't need to have a complete
>> description of arithmetic. Our universe can be described by doing a
>> number of computations from a finite set of rules. (To g
.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
> (7) From (3) mathematical concepts are objectively real. But there
> exist mathematical concepts (inifinite sets) which cannot be explained
> in terms of finite physical processes.
How can you prove that infinite sets exists?
--
Tor
(From the swedish Allting List:)
The discrete space-time is a liquid. This explains why the space is
isomorph in all directions.
The one that discovered that the space-time is a liquid, was Xiao-Gang
Wen (Home Page: http://dao.mit.edu/~wen ). He has found that elementary
particles are not t
objects that form nets and fill our vacuum.
3.- Q: Why do light and fermions exist?
A:
Light and fermions exist because our vacuum is a quantum
liquid of string-nets.
This is from the introduction of the URL so kindly provided by Torgny.
It looks very interesting, a gteat idea indeed
John Mikes skrev:
>
> JM: Then what makes them into a continuous 'string'? OR: do those
> individual points arrange in unassigned directions they just wish? If
> they only fluctuate by themselves, what reference do they
> (individually) follow to be callable 'string' -'fluctuate' - or just
> "
uot;models" (cf type 1 multi-realty of Tegmark).
The type 1 multi-reality of Tegmark does not require infinity. The
type 1 multi-reality is true also in a finite universe, that is
*enough* big...
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
ove that each x in N has a corresponding number 2*x in E?
If m is the biggest number in N, then there will be no corresponding
number 2*m in E, because 2*m is not a number.
> Now, instead of taking this at face value like Cantor, Galileo will
> instead t
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 14-nov.-07, à 17:23, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
What do you mean by "..."?
Are you asking this as a student who does not understand the math, or
as a philospher who, like an ultrafinist, does not believe in the
potential infinite
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
Hi,
Le Thursday 15 November 2007 14:45:24 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
What do you mean by "each" in the sentence "for each natural number"? How
do you define ALL natural numbers?
There is a nat
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 15-nov.-07, à 14:45, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
Do you have the big-black-cloud interpretation of "..."?
By that I
mean that there is a big black cloud at the end of the visible part of
universe,
Concerning what I am trying to conve
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 15-nov.-07, à 14:45, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
But m+1 is not a number.
This means that you believe there is a finite sequence of "s" of the
type
A =
s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
If you define the set of all natural numbers N, then you can pull out
the biggest number m from that set. But this number m has a different
"type" than the ordinary numbers. (You see that I have some sort of
"type theory" for the numbers.) Th
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
Now you define a new concept INNFINITE, that is defined by:
If you have a bijection from all visible numbers of a set S, to all
visible numbers of a true subset of S, then you say that the set S in
INNFINITE.
Then you can use this concept INNFINITE, and you
omega, and the number of all subsets always have bigger cardinality than
the set. So omega^omega can not have the same cardinality as omega.
--
Torgny
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everythin
2
> ...
> n --- n-1
> ...
>
> All right?"-" represents a rope.
>
An ultrafinitist comment:
In the last line of this sequence you will have:
? - omega-1
But what will the "?" be? It can not be omega, because omega is not
included in N...
--
, and this I will do an infinite number of times. So you
will not be able to prove that there is no bijection...
==
What is wrong with this conclusion?
--
Torgny
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
