Le 24-juin-05, à 20:27, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit :
> Bruno, I have to be honest and say that I'm just starting to get into
> this stuff out of a passing interesting and that I probably don't have
> time and priority to study the math that would be sufficient to make a
> significant contribution in my view.
To be sure I was not asking a contribution! But you did point on
something interesting.
> For instance, I just learned about Church's lamba calculus last night.
It is probably better than learning about Church's lambda calculus
tomorrow.
> So I probably went in over my head in citing Lowenheim-Skolem. But is
> not my statement correct with regard to Lowenheim-Skolem and
> cardinalities? If so, then perhaps the iffy part is the application
> to this topic (so perhaps I committed the 1004 fallacy here).
> Nevertheless, regarding the application, on the surface it just seems
> that to make any conclusions about whether there is a non-zero
> probability of something being true or happening, you need to know the
> cardinalities of the sets you are working with.
Actually, not really. You need a measurable space. It is a set with a
sigma algebra of subsets. Cantor found uncountable sets (high
cardinality) with measure zero. It is very tricky, especially with
comp. But with modal logic I have been able to isolate the measure one
logic, without investing to much in measure theory.
> I will be gone on a marriage retreat this weekend, so I'll be back on
> Monday.
A marriage retreat! This is what I should suggest to my friend Jack!
Thanks, ;-)
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Jun 25 2005 - 12:04:54 PDT