|
|
 | | From: | |-|erc | | Subject: | *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible *** | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:32:18 +1000 |
|
|
 | > "a random real number can be on it to an infinite number of digits"
> wide crosspost merely to highlight the moment.
The emphasis was meant to be on the proposition, not a mass personal attack
on me to cover the fact you all swore blue this was incomprehensible and false
to me, 20 or 30 of you all swore to my face this was false for months, talk about that!
Why do you think I've been posting TO HOW MANY DIGITS?
in 20 different formats for the last 10 days?
Herc
"John Savard" wrote in
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:51:55 +1000, "|-|erc" wrote, in part:
>
> >But have you shown there is no contradiction "for real Random and list Computables"?
>
> By showing that there is no contradiction between 1/3 and SimpleCount,
> as I put it, I do show that, for the same reason, if you have the list
> of computables, a random real number can be on it to an infinite number
> of digits, and yet not be on the list. Because showing there is no
> contradiction in the case that is easier to understand means that the
> general principle used to _claim_ a contradiction exists is false.
>
> In other words, I've shown you haven't shown there is a contradiction
> "for real Random and list Computables".
>
> John Savard
> http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
--
Have you now or have you ever been a member of the antidisestablishmentarianism party?
|
|
| | From: | Prai Jei | | Subject: | Re: *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible *** | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:47:58 +0000 |
|
|
| |-|erc (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<354kurF4dasldU1@individual.net>:
> Have you now or have you ever been a member of the
> antidisestablishmentarianism party?
Is the
spårvagnsaktiebolagsskensmuttskjutarefackföreningspersonalbeklädnadsmagasinsförrådsförvalteren
Swedish?
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
|
|
| | From: | John Savard | | Subject: | Re: *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible *** | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:45:05 GMT |
|
|
| On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:32:18 +1000, "|-|erc" wrote, in part:
>Have you now or have you ever been a member of the antidisestablishmentarianism party?
No, I am for disestablishment. Having an established church is a direct
violation of the First Amendment, and, therefore, is a serious British
human-rights issue.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
|
|
| | From: | Mike Oliver | | Subject: | Re: *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:51:38 -0600 |
|
|
| John Savard wrote:
> No, I am for disestablishment. Having an established church is a direct
> violation of the First Amendment, and, therefore, is a serious British
> human-rights issue.
A clever bit of irony there. But surely not seriously intended
to refute the disestablishmentarian argument, which I strongly
doubt is based on the First Amendment.
|
|
| | From: | John Savard | | Subject: | Re: *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible *** | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:17:59 GMT |
|
|
| On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:51:38 -0600, Mike Oliver
wrote, in part:
>John Savard wrote:
>> No, I am for disestablishment. Having an established church is a direct
>> violation of the First Amendment, and, therefore, is a serious British
>> human-rights issue.
>A clever bit of irony there. But surely not seriously intended
>to refute the disestablishmentarian argument, which I strongly
>doubt is based on the First Amendment.
It certainly is true that the First Amendment is to the Constitution of
the United States of America, of which the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland is not a part.
However, I was not expressing ironic opposition to disestablishment.
Although the U.S. Constitution applies, in its fullness and in its
enforceability, only to the United States, the Bill of Rights (that is,
the first ten amendments to that Constitution) like the Declaration of
Independence and the Magna Carta, expresses fundamental principles of
freedom and justice which belong to the realm of natural law.
That is, these are principles of right and wrong that are self-evident
to human reason, rather than being dependent on Divine revelation.
Therefore:
As no claim of Divine revelation has sufficient empirical evidence
behind it to compel the assent of all reasonable men of intelligence, no
government may make a law that exalts some denominations above others.
As the right of the people to rule themselves depends on the ability of
the people as a whole to think and make decisions together, laws may not
be made which set out what political viewpoints may be expressed in
speech or writing, or published over media of mass availability. Nor can
peaceful gatherings of people to make representations concerning
political matters be subject to suppression on purely political grounds,
for the same reason.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
|
|
| | From: | Mike Oliver | | Subject: | Re: *** The string is on_the_list TO_INFINITE_DIGITS is NOT incomprehensible | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:09:52 -0600 |
|
|
| John Savard wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:51:38 -0600, Mike Oliver
> wrote, in part:
>
>>John Savard wrote:
>
>>>No, I am for disestablishment. Having an established church is a direct
>>>violation of the First Amendment, and, therefore, is a serious British
>>>human-rights issue.
>
>>A clever bit of irony there. But surely not seriously intended
>>to refute the disestablishmentarian argument, which I strongly
>>doubt is based on the First Amendment.
>
> It certainly is true that the First Amendment is to the Constitution of
> the United States of America, of which the United Kingdom of Great
> Britain and Northern Ireland is not a part.
>
> However, I was not expressing ironic opposition to disestablishment.
>
> Although the U.S. Constitution applies, in its fullness and in its
> enforceability, only to the United States, the Bill of Rights (that is,
> the first ten amendments to that Constitution) like the Declaration of
> Independence and the Magna Carta, expresses fundamental principles of
> freedom and justice which belong to the realm of natural law.
Well, so I mostly agree with you on most of this. But as much as
the framers (or some of them) may have viewed the Bill of Rights
(or large parts of it) as *inspired* by natural law, and as successful
as it may have been in codifying parts of that law, I don't think anyone
would claim that natural law is in any way *defined* by the First Amendment.
So I'd have chosen other words.
|
|
|
