Hal, I went back and reviewed some of your old postings. My interpretation of your system was closer to the mark than I'd suspected!
I think enumeration via inconsistency can be equivalent to enumeration by incompleteness... depending on exactly how things are defined. Enumeration by inconsistency seems more intuitive to me: inconsistency can be readily detected (derive P&~P), whereas incompleteness cannot. --Abram On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Hal Ruhl <halr...@alum.syracuse.edu> wrote: > > Hi Abram: > > My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no > distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an > unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they > spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something > may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable > questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. > > In this regard also see my next lines in that post: > > "The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition. They > each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability > distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]." > > I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years > in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as > clear as it could have been. > > However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your > discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this > before. > > Yours > > Hal > > -----Original Message----- > From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com > [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski > Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? > > > Hal, > > I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I > interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: > > "5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no > distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness." > > If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are > apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert > them to be incomplete? > > --Abram > > > > > > -- Abram Demski Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---