Hi Bruno:
At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote:
>Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit :
>
> >
> > Hi Bruno:
> >
> > In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach.
> >
> > The first has to do with the process of making a list.
> >
> > The assumption is:
> >
> > Making a list of items [which could be some of
> > the elements of a set for example] is always a
> > process of making a one to one mapping of the
> > items to some of the counting numbers such as:
> >
> > 1 - an item
> > 2 - an item not previously on the list
> > 3 - an item not previously on the list
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > n - last item and it was not previously on the list
>
>
>I don' t see clearly an assumption here. I guess you are assuming
>existence of things capable of being put in a list.
What I am trying to do is establish what making a
list is in my model and does it have any mathematical credence.
I make it an assumption because some may believe
that "make a list" means something different.
>Effectively? then
>why not use the Wi (cf Cutland's book or older explanations I have
>provided on the list. Help yourself with Podniek's page perhaps, or try
>to be just informal.
>
See below
> >
> > My second assumption is:
> >
> > Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties.
>
>
>You talk like if it was an axiomatic. A good test to see if it is an
>axiomatic consists to change the primitive words you are using by
>arbitrary words. You are saying "glass of bears have trees and garden".
Did you mean class not "glass"?
>You can add that you mean that the term "glass of bear" is *intended
>for states of universes,
I am not a mathematician so I do not quite understand the above.
> but recall the goal is to provide an
>explanation for the appearance of the "states of universes".
If I understand you, that comes later in the walk through of my model
> In general
>properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set
>theory, but then you "axiomatic" has to be clean.
>
See below
> >
> > My third assumption is:
> >
> > All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed.
>
>
>I guess you assume church thesis, and you are talking about effective
>properties.
>
To me at this point the Church Thesis is an
ingredient in some of the possible state
succession sequences allowed in my model.
I mean all properties I do not know if that is
the same as your "effective" properties.
> >
> > My fourth assumption is:
> >
> > The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite.
>
>
>? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)).
>
This is my point above - "to list" inherently a
countably infinite [as max length] process.
I would add that my third assumption becomes more
important later as one of the keys to my model's dynamic.
> >
> > Conclusions so far:
> > [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full
> > list.]
> > [The number of objects is uncountably infinite]
>
>What is the full list?
The list of all possible properties of objects.
> >
> > I will stop there for now and await comments.
> >
> > As to the remainder of the post:
> >
> > In the above I have not reached the point of
> > deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not
> > focusing on computations when I say that any
> > succession of states is allowed. Logically
> > related successions are allowed. Successions
> > displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed.
>
>
>I have already mentionned that comp entails some strong form of (first
>person) randomness. Indeed, a priori to much.
>
Yes we have discussed this before, and it is one
of the reasons I continue to believe that your approach is a sub set of mine.
I know it has taken a long time for me to reach a
level in my model where I could even begin to use
an axiom based description and I appreciate your patience.
> >
> > I would like to finish the walk through of my
> > model before discussing white rabbits and observation.
>
>
>I am really sorry Hall. It looks you want to be both informal and
>formal. It does not help me to understand what you are trying to say.
I have read that it takes 10 years of focused
practice to become an expert in a given sub discipline.
At this point in my practice of engineering I am
on my way to becoming an expert in a fifth sub discipline.
I hope you can understand why I must continue to
find a path to the development and expression of
my ideas in this venue that is short of becoming
an expert in mathematical expression.
I appreciate your help and perhaps with a little
more of it I can reach what you are asking for.
Perhaps it is also a good idea to exhaust the
idea of whether or not your approach is or is not
a sub set of another approach.
Yours
Hal Ruhl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 22:43:28 PST