Re: The seven step series
Dear Bruno,
when I looked at the set-analysis it immediately popped up that {1,3} was
missing, - YET - this *fantastic* discovery of mine did not bring me
closer to the idea "what are numbers".
It seems I can win the battle and still lose the war.
John
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM, m.a. wrote:
> *Here's my third try. I'll continue working on the (power x) problem.
> m.a.*
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Bruno Marchal
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: The seven step series
>
>
> On 08 Jul 2009, at 15:43, m.a. wrote:
>
> *Second try:*
>
> (power {1, 2, 3}) = ? *{{ }, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}*
> **
>
> * Third try: *
> **
> * = {{ }, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2},
> {2,3}, {1,2,3}, {{ },1,2,3}}*
> This is far better! Not yet correct though.
>
> I gave you the hint that there are 8 elements. Let us count:
>
> The empty set { } ..1
> Three singletons {1}, {2}, {3}3
> Two doubletons {1,2 }, {2,3 }2
> The biggest subset {1,2,3}..1
>
> 1 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 7
>
> A subset is missing! Can you see which one?
>
>
>>
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The seven step series
On 10 Jul 2009, at 22:52, Johnathan Corgan wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 22:24 +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one >> correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else >> could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises. > > Bruno--you're doing great. I think it is the case where silence means > "I understand, continue", rather than disinterest. Well, thanks, OK, perhaps. > > >> There is also some sort of burden onto me, because it is hard to >> explain "the real thing" concerning the seventh step, without >> explaining or just illustrating at least some relevant portion of the >> mathematical reality: mainly the unexpected mathematical discovery of >> the universal functions, sets, numbers, systems, language, >> machine ... >> I don't mention the absence of drawing ability which does not help. > > The derivation of your thesis from first principles is a very > compelling > idea. The somewhat startling and unorthodox conclusions you espouse > are > bound to cause confusion unless all their underpinnings are well > understood. There are two things. Understanding the conclusions, and understanding how we get to them. Many variations are possible in between are possible for varied audience. > The arguments from others then can have a much more > specific target than the top-level conclusions; instead they will come > out earlier in the derivation process and at the time of > introduction of > the controversial subject. But what is controversial? I have never heard about something controversial seen in the reasoning. The conclusion are astonishing, and certainly annoying for someone who believes "religiously" in both physicalism and digital mechanism. The subject matter was controversial a long time ago, but today, it is no more, I think. Well, it depends on which circle. That something appears in the academy (like studies on consciousness, does not mean that all academicians understand the questioning there, alas). I have heard that the first person indeterminacy, which is my mean early contribution, is controversial, but I have never seen any controversy on it, just sometimes, some discussion on the vocabulary or definition, which does not change any conclusion. The subject matter is difficult, so it easier for the "religious" people (like convinced atheists, to be clear) to speculate about some difficulties they don't even try to single out. I proceed in the scientific way, which means that I just ask questions, and anyone can verify what follows from what, or interrupt and present an objection. Up to now, none of the "real" objections presented were fatal, and eventually those reduce also to a problem of vocabulary. > > >> The knowledge of most people participating to the discussion is very >> varied, due to the extreme transdiciplinarity of the subject, and the >> interest it can evidently have for the layman (and indeed, for any >> universal machine). > > While I do have training in math and physics, I still benefit from > your > targeting the motivated layman. Personally, I'm not interested in > doing > the exercises on the list, but they are still useful to check my > understanding. OK. > > >> Best regards to all of you, and thanks for letting me know your >> interests, > > By all means, proceed. Personally, if I don't understand something or > have an objection, you'll hear about it on the list, but I think you > should take silence as assent. If only silence could be assent! But I am willing to take yours as such and I will proceed. Best, 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 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The seven step series
On 12 Jul 2009, at 17:28, John Mikes wrote:
> Dear Bruno,
> when I looked at the set-analysis it immediately popped up that
> {1,3} was missing, -
Good!
> YET - this fantastic discovery of mine did not bring me closer to
> the idea "what are numbers".
And, assuming comp, you never will. None of us will. Sets can provide
a nice representation of the numbers, which I have already given some
times ago, but for now, I prefer to take the numbers as basic
entities. Sets are more complex entities than numbers, in general.
What are the numbers? I can give you only some hints, like zero is the
number of matches in a empty box, one is the number of matches in a
box having one match in, and so on ...
About the "and so on ... " I can only hope you have been enough
trained in high school to have an idea.
I cannot explain really what are numbers, but, if you assume the comp
theory, I can explain "completely", from it, why numbers develop
beliefs in galaxies, get conscious, makes a big variety of dreams, and
eventually realize why they will never knows what numbers are, and
what they are capable of.
Number are the necessary mystery, from which we start. What I like in
comp, is that it explains why the numbers have to be a mystery.
Bruno
> It seems I can win the battle and still lose the war.
> John
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:05 PM, m.a. wrote:
> Here's my third try. I'll continue working on the (power x)
> problem. m.a.
> - Original Message -
> From: Bruno Marchal
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: The seven step series
>
>
> On 08 Jul 2009, at 15:43, m.a. wrote:
>
>> Second try:
>>> (power {1, 2, 3}) = ? {{ }, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}
>>>
>
>Third try:
> = {{ }, {1}, {2}, {3},
> {1,2}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}, {{ },1,2,3}}
>
> This is far better! Not yet correct though.
>
> I gave you the hint that there are 8 elements. Let us count:
>
> The empty set { } ..1
> Three singletons {1}, {2}, {3}3
> Two doubletons {1,2 }, {2,3 }2
> The biggest subset {1,2,3}..1
>
> 1 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 7
>
> A subset is missing! Can you see which one?
>
>
>>
>> >>
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 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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The seven step series
Hi Bruno, I'd like to let you know that I'm following the serie of your letters. While I have the background you are covering right now, I still enjoy your insights. I joined the list like two years ago and from that time I've read most of your key papers. Honestly, it is not the easiest stuff to read style-wise. You try to precise, define well, etc. yet it cannot really be compared to the quality of, let us say, Physical Review Letters and alike articles. In my opinion, that is why it is hard to either agree or disagree with your thesis. I can imagine that right now you are tempted to write something along the lines a\ I just propose to take Church thesis seriously b\ All I ask you is 'Do you say yes to the doctor? While valid proposal and question, there is really not much to agree with/disagree with/critize unless one is willing to undertake long discussions, clarifications and position adjustments. Anyway, your papers and letters are really a great source of ideas to think about and that is exactly what I do. From the day one on the list I keep myself busy with the question of "Why should I believe in the Church thesis" (you see, I don't write "Why do I ..."). I've got into the writing of Bernard Bolzano (I consider his work cruicial in order to keep an open mind about the Cantor diagonal argument) .. - and now back to the beginning of my letter - Bolzano (Cantor), your insights and thinking about alternatives at any moment make me pretty happy. Thanks! Mirek PS: I'd love to read a book by Bruno Marchal. Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi all, > > I suddenly feel sorry putting too much burden on just one > correspondent in the list, and I would appreciate if someone else > could propose answers or any remarks to the exercises. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
