Re: Book preview: Theory of Nothing

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:20:04 +1000

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:18:22AM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> I have argued that the Nothing is incomplete [its "mate" - I call it the
> All - may be inconsistent due to its completeness] and the collection -
> Nothing + All + the definition - I call the Everything]. If the Nothing
> is incomplete and the All is not is this a violation of mathematical
> duality?
>
> Hal Ruhl
>

Perhaps "completeness" <-> "consistency" under the duality
operation. So a demonstration of nothing being incomplete is
equivalent to a demonstration that the all is inconsistent.

Cheers

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Mon Aug 29 2005 - 19:50:13 PDT