RE: virus: Re: Social Metaphysics

Tadeusz Niwinski (tad@teta.ai)
Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:07:44 -0700

David McF wrote:
>At 01:34 PM 9/30/97 -0700, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
>>>If you're getting at what I think you're getting at here --
>>>which I admit is questionable -- then these people are
>>>saying not <A>=A, but (A=A)=(<A>=<A>).
>>
>>In fact they said: (A=A) not = (<A>="A")
>
>Perhaps one of you would be kind enough to translate these
>into English?

When you came with your famous conjecture, you said:

>>>Wow, progress! Are there any dissenters, or can we start exploring the
>>>weird and wonderful territory entailed by the aforementioned conjecture?

>> Yes, please go on. Did you just say that A=A in objective reality?

>No, he said <statements about A>="statements about A" for
>everyone using the same words, I believe.

I have two questions:

1) Are we ready to "start exploring the weird and wonderful territory
entailed by the aforementioned conjecture" ? (Allowing dead Goliath to flip
here and there, of course).

2) Can we use A=A as a shorthand notation for your conjecture?

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa
tad@teta.ai http://www.teta.ai (604) 985-4159