On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 1:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > >> On 9/29/2012 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Indeed. I think 17 is intrinsically a prime number in all possible >> realities. >> >> >> It is not a reality in a world that only has 16 objects in it. I can >> come up with several other counter-examples in terms of finite field, but >> that is overly belaboring a point. >> >> > This can clearly be shown to be false. For me to be responding to this > post (using a a secure connection to my mail server) requires the use of > prime numbers of 153 decimal digits in length. > > There are on the order of 10^90 particles in the observable universe. > This is far smaller than the prime numbers which are larger than 10^152. > So would you say these numbers are not prime, merely because we don't have > 10^153 things we can point to? > > If a number P can be prime in a universe with fewer than P objects in > it, might P be prime in a universe with 0 objects? > > Jason > > > LOL Jason, > > Did you completely miss the point of "reality"? When is it even > possible to have a "universe with 0 objects"? Nice oxymoron! > Say there is a universe that exists only an infinitely extended 3-manifold. Is this not a "universe with 0 objects"? In any case, did my example change your opinion regarding the primality of 17 in a universe with 16 objects? Jason -- 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@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.
