Bruno:
Aren't you fall back in your 2nd par at the end into
an 'idem per idem' explanation?
I asked (from Georges) a way to GET AWAY from the
number-essence or ID when we assign (con)ceptual
meanings to ideas/things "you people" call NUMBERS
ONLY. You return to a number-based activity in your
question.
Who is to "think" of the "English version of Gone with
the wind" when looking at an 'arbitrary big' number?
The more important part is: and WHY?
I can think of a 'meaning' when I look at the infinite
number of pi (metaphorically speaking) and it is: THAT
meaning is not prone to be expressed in decimal
numbers (the reason of its infinite unexpressebla,
uncodable variety) it is simply and only "pi" as
described in geometrical terms. But I am a
simpleminded commonsense person, not a mathematician.
John M
--- Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Le 03-avr.-06, à 23:20, daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden a écrit
> :
>
> >
> > Quentin:
> >
> > I don't know from your wink at the end whether you
> are half-serious or
> > not.
> > But just in case (and Bruno can do better than I
> can on this), I think
> > I can correctly appeal to Peano's distinction
> between mathematical and
> > linguistic paradox. The meaning of the symbols is
> defined at a higher
> > level than the encoding itself.
>
> Yes, and the "gone with the wind" seemingly
> paradoxical statement does
> not depend of the encoding chosen. If you write the
> number with the
> base <keyboard>, it means that any humans looking at
> arbitrary big
> numbers will see the "usual english version of "gone
> with the wind".
> But the reasoning to show this does not depend of
> the base nor on any
> particular encodings.
>
> I take the opportunity to recall a universal
> dovetailer is not
> equivalent with set of finite or even infinite
> strings. I will come
> back on this in a post "the heart of the matter"
> where I will try to
> make more precise what is the UD and what is the
> relation between the
> UD and the type G reasoner (and then the
> "hypostases" will appear by
> themselves, including a Plotinus-like theory of
> matter.
>
>
>
> > Your statement turns on the word
> > "chosen", which is a verb. This goes back to my
> other post in this
> > thread that, in order to keep from going into an
> infinite regress of
> > meaninglessness, defining meaning ultimately
> requires a person.
>
>
> I agree with you. Now, in order of *defining*
> meaning through the
> notion of person, well, you need to *define* the
> notion of person. And
> this can be done with the comp hyp. At an informal
> level it can be done
> by the notion of transportable diary, like the one
> of the candidate for
> the self-duplication experiment which is supposed to
> be destroyed in
> teleportation experiment. At a formal level it can
> be done trough the
> modal variant which are forced by the incompleteness
> argument (this
> leads to the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus
> notion of "person"
> called "hypostase".
>
> But all this has quasi noting to do with the fact
> that all finite
> strings appears in almost all big numbers. We don't
> need any notion of
> meaning for stating this. I give a hint for the
> proof: show first that
> in the usual base "10", the absence of "9" is rare.
> Then generalize.
>
> 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.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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Apr 04 2006 - 11:31:22 PDT