On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
On 2/10/2012 14:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing
Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to
have result
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
interactions as they each contain the laws of
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact
Manifolds of string theory that are purported to control all physical
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical communications model is
the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds of string theory
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set
Stephan,
Thank you for your support and kind words. Actually you may be the first
learned person to actually read the paper. I sent it to Yau and to
Chalmers, but I doubt that they got beyond the Abstract. Now I need to
admit that I am neither expert in string theory or math logic. For example
I
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical
On 2/13/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for your support and kind words. Actually you may be the
first learned person to actually read the paper. I sent it to Yau and
to Chalmers, but I doubt that they got beyond the Abstract. Now I need
to admit that I am neither
On 2/13/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
RDR: Not sure if this is helpful,
On 2/13/2012 9:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 12:09 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 8:54 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 11:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:26 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard
On 2/10/2012 14:01, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing
Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to
have result and that result is independent of all your
implementations, such a
On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote:
Another way to think of it would be in the terms of the Church Turing
Thesis, where you expect that a computation (in the Turing sense) to
have result and that result is independent of all your
implementations, such a result not being changeable in any way or by
13 matches
Mail list logo
