Re: Cantor's Diagonal

2007-12-03 Thread David Nyman

On Nov 20, 4:40 pm, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Conclusion: 2^N, the set of infinite binary sequences, is not
> enumerable.
>
> All right?

OK.  I have to try to catch up now, because I've had to be away longer
than I expected, but I'm clear on this diagonal argument.

David

> Hi,
>
> David, are you still there? This is a key post, with respect to the
> "Church Thesis" thread.
>
> So let us see that indeed there is no bijection between N and 2^N =
> 2X2X2X2X2X2X... = {0,1}X{0,1}X{0,1}X{0,1}X... = the set of infinite
> binary sequences.
>
> Suppose that there is a bijection between N and the set of infinite
> binary sequences. Well, it will look like that, where again ""
> represents the "ropes":
>
> 0  -- (1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 ...
> 1 --  (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1 ...
> 2 --- (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...
> 3 --- (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...
> 4 --- (0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, ...
> 5 (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, ...
> ...
>
> My "sheep" are the natural numbers, and my neighbor's sheep are the
> infinite binary sequences (the function from N to 2, the elements of
> the infinite cartesian product 2X2X2X2X2X2X... ).
> My flock of sheep is the *set* of natural numbers, and my neighbor's
> flock of sheep is the *set* of all infinite binary sequences.
>
> Now, if this:
>
> 0  -- (1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 ...
> 1 --  (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1 ...
> 2 --- (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, ...
> 3 --- (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, ...
> 4 --- (0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, ...
> 5 (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, ...
> ...
>
> is really a bijection, it means that all the numbers 1 and 0 appearing
> on the right are well determined (perhaps in Platonia, or in God's
> mind, ...).
>
> But then the diagonal sequence, going from the left up to right down,
> and build from the list of binary sequences above:
>
> 1 0 0 1 0 0 ...
>
> is also completely well determined (in Platonia or in the mind of a
> God).
>
> But then the complementary sequence (with the 0 and 1 permuted) is also
> well defined, in Platonia or in the mind of God(s)
>
> 0 1 1 0 1 1 ...
>
> But this infinite sequence cannot be in the list, above. The "God" in
> question has to ackonwledge that.
> The complementary sequence is clearly different
> -from the 0th sequence (1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0 ..., because it differs at
> the first (better the 0th)  entry.
> -from the 1th sequence (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1 ...  because it differs at
> the second (better the 1th)  entry.
> -from the 2th sequence (0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1 ...  because it differs at
> the third (better the 2th)  entry.
> and so one.
> So, we see that as far as we consider the bijection above well
> determined (by God, for example), then we can say to that God that the
> bijection misses one of the neighbor sheep, indeed the "sheep"
> constituted by the infinite binary sequence complementary to the
> diagonal sequence cannot be in the list, and that sequence is also well
> determined (given that the whole table is).
>
> But this means that this bijection fails. Now the reasoning did not
> depend at all on the choice of any particular bijection-candidate.  Any
> conceivable bijection will lead to a well determined infinite table of
> binary numbers. And this will determine the diagonal sequence and then
> the complementary diagonal sequence, and this one cannot be in the
> list, because it contradicts all sequences in the list when they cross
> the diagonal (do the drawing on paper).
>
> Conclusion: 2^N, the set of infinite binary sequences, is not
> enumerable.
>
> All right?
>
>   Next I will do again that proof, but with notations instead of
> drawing, and I will show more explicitly how the contradiction arise.
>
> Exercice-training: show similarly that N^N, the set of functions from N
> to N, is not enumerable.
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-12-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:21, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

> Why can't our universe be modelled by a cellular automata?


By UDA, this is just  a priori impossible.

What *is* still possible, is that you can "modelize" the emergence of 
the appearance of a universe by modelling, with a cellular automata, a 
couple "observer + a quantum cellular automata", or by modelling all 
possible observers through universal dovetaling. Normally the 
appearance of the quantum will be generated as well.

If you are a machine, the physical universe (the sharable third person 
pov) is not describable in term of working machine. Unless you are the 
whole universe yourself, which I doubt.
If, you are the whole universe, and if you (the universe) exist, and if 
comp is false and ultrafinitism true, then you are right. But then, 
about the mind body problem, you are reintroducing the material bullet 
making even impossible to really addressed the question. Imo: it would 
be a regression.

This comment assumes a good understanding of the seven first steps of 
the UDA.



> Our universe
> is very complicated, but why can't it be modelled by a very complicated
> automata?


Because, by assuming comp, the (physical) universe has to emerge non 
locally from an infinity of infinite computations.


> An automata where you have models for protons and electrons
> and photons and all other elementary particles, that obey the same laws
> as the particles in our universe?


Of course I talk here on exact emulation. FAPP, you can simulate 
electron and photon. About  "reality", I am not even sure there are 
photons and electrons, we have non local (in our local 
histories/branches) wavy interacting fields.
Note that Newton's law, taken seriously enough, are also not turing 
emulable, like almost everything in naïve math.


Bruno





http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Theory of Everything based on E8 by Garrett Lisi

2007-12-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


Le 30-nov.-07, à 20:00, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :

> Here I am an ultrafinitist.  I believe that the universe is strictly
> finite.  The space and time are discrete.  And the space today have a
> limit.  But the time might be without limit, that I don't know.



Then you are physicalist before being ultrafinitist.

Now ultrafinitism implies comp (OK?, 'course comp does not imply 
ultrafinitism!)

But I have already argued that comp implies the falsity of physicalism 
(UDA), so?

BTW, you often quote wiki or other standard definition of math concept. 
But few are justifiable in the ultrafinitist realm, so many of your 
statements seems contradictory to me.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---