On 10/6/2012 10:40 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
Were did the "infinitely extended 3-manifold" come from? You are
treating it as if it where an object!
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
