Nick_Tarleton comments on Supernatural Math - Less Wrong

1 Post author: saturn 19 May 2009 11:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 19 May 2009 07:18:22PM 0 points [-]

Not that I disagree with your conclusion (or agree – mostly I'm just confused), but:

I don't believe there is any physical system, in our brains or otherwise, that represents this function or its integral.

Including the representation in your computer, or your brain, of the phrase "the function f on the real numbers such that for any real number x, f(x) is 1 if x is irrational and f(x) is 0 otherwise"?

Comment author: JGWeissman 19 May 2009 07:31:05PM 1 point [-]

Ah, I should clarify that point, it is confusing as I wrote it.

I meant that there is no physical domain over which some point wise property varies discontinuously as a function of whether the point, in some measure, has a rational or irrational distance from some reference, and that the only physical systems that in any sense represent the function do so indirectly, by representing propositions about it (such as the examples you gave).