Re: death

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 18:03:50 +0200

Le 24-juin-05, à 20:27, 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

> 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, ;-)

Received on Sat Jun 25 2005 - 12:04:54 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST