Re: K the Master Set (+ partial answer to Tom's Diagonalization)

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:39:50 +0200

Hi George,

A roadmap could be a very good idea. I will think about it.
I will keep on your level notions:


(But not in any normative sense: I know kids who are better in math
than colleagues, and I know a family where the computer and the net has
been installed by the grand-grandmother! So here each one should judge
by him/herself on which level they to feel to be.

But a roadmap, some summaries ... are in need, sure. Not so easy of
course. Just let me think about it.
Note also that if I explain in plain english, what I say could appear
as a little weird, that is why I tend to be technical. And also, I
don't know much people who can swallow both Godel/Church... and
Everett/Deutsch ... Quantum information science can help, but this is a
bit tricky by itself when you want to be enough precise, and still a
long way from Godel-lobian notions.

In any case thanks for letting me know when I get too much technical.
Thanks to Norman who tries sometimes to convey a similar message, and
thanks to Tom for enjoying apparently the more technical posts ....,
and thanks to 1Z for playing the role of the skeptical one, and thanks
to all of you, especially Wei Dai, for the kind patience.

I will think about some roadmap, but also about some books which could
provide helps.

Feel free to say more on your "relativity"-information theory. Everyone
can talk I certainly don't want to monopolize the threads (but then I
got a result and I like to share with motivated people ...)...

Now I will leave my office before I liquefy completely ....


Le 19-juil.-06, à 00:32, George Levy a écrit :

> Hi Bruno
> Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred
> techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the
> pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve
> the same problem by preparing vegetarian meals.
> As a mathematician you are trying to compose a theory of everything
> using mathematics, this is understandable, and you came up with COMP
> which is strongly rooted in mathematics and logic.
> I came up independently with my own concept involving a
> generalization of relativity to information theory ( my background is
> engineering/physics) and somehow we seem to agree on many points.
> Unfortunately I do not have the background and the time to give my
> ideas a formal background. It is just an engineering product and it
> feels right.
> I believe that what you are saying is right,  however I am having
> some trouble following you, just like Norman Samish said. It would
> help if you outlined a roadmap. Then we would be able to follow the
> roadmap without having to stop and admire the mathematical scenery at
> every turn even though it is very beautiful to the initiated, I am
> sure. For example you could use several levels of explanation: a first
> level would be as if your were talking to your grandmother; a second
> level, talking to your kids (if they listen); a last level, talking to
> your colleagues.
> George
> >

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Wed Jul 19 2006 - 10:40:56 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST