LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  April 2013, Week 4

CONLANG April 2013, Week 4

Subject:

Re: Game Mechanics Help: Metalinguistics

From:

"H. S. Teoh" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:10:26 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (555 lines)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 08:18:22PM -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
[...]
> Creating a consistent physics is something I completely quail at: to
> do it justice, getting the things that one wants to be emergent to
> actually be plausibly _emergent_ and not just bodged on or handwaved
> in, seems like the work of dozens of lifetimes (... as opposed to
> creating a believably lived-in language, which seems only the work of
> dozens of lifetimes).  

Yeah, this was what I was getting at when I mentioned the difficulty of
one person creating and fleshing out an entire universe in a fully
consistent way, vs. a large number of very clever physicists exploring a
universe that is already there, ready-made, and (presumably)
self-consistent.

This is why I eventually just let loose and allowed my con-universe to
grow in its own way without any mandatory ties to the real-world:
emergent systems are HARD to invent! They are hard enough to *discover*,
as things stand, needless to say to invent out of thin air.


> Though: [dons ranty hat] Electric charge is not to colour charge as
> two is to three, but as *one* is to three!  Electric charges belong to
> a one-dimensional representation of their gauge group, colour charges
> to a three-dimensional representation of theirs.  

You're right, quark color charge is not really what I'm doing with
Ferochromic triality, because Ferochromic triality isn't 3D, but quark
color charge is (hence you have quark pairs with charges like
blue-antired, green-antiblue, etc.).


> The two-ness that is manifested in the dyad of positive and negative
> charges is the fact that there are two signs of real number, positive
> and negative: i.e. that the maximal compact subgroup of the
> multiplicative group of the reals has cardinality two.  So if in
> Ferochromatic (or like) physics you wanted tht two to become a three,
> you'd want something like a field with three topological connected
> components, and I have n idea where you get that kind of thing if
> you're unwilling to abandon the reals and anything to do with them.
> (Could you have a physics whose underlying numbers were the 3-adics?)

Well, I initially *started* with the youthful questioning of what might
happen if electric charges were 3-fold rather than 2-fold, but it wasn't
that long before I realized that the answer I had in mind would resemble
*nothing* like how the real world works. :) And yes, I *did* consider
adopting a "scalar" system that isn't isomorphic to the reals, but that
did not get very far, as such systems tend to behave in ways so bizarre
that the result would hardly resemble a habitable "universe". :)

One of the things I found along the way was a rather interesting
structure that *may* serve as such an "alternative scalar" system. There
are many equivalent ways of constructing/describing it, but one simple
description is to take 3 infinite full binary trees (i.e., every node
has 2 children), and attach their root nodes to a single ternary node.
This causes every node to be topologically isomorphic to each other,
thus producing a fractal-like branching structure that is more than a 1D
linear line of integers, but not quite 2D either. Now, since every node
has exactly 3 neighbours, you can assign one of three colors to every
edge such that no two edges touching the same node has the same color.
If you then mark out a specific node, a string of colors selected from
the set of three will uniquely indicate a path from that node to another
node.  These strings have the property that any two adjacent identical
colors will "cancel" each other out, so every such "path string" has a
unique shortest representation. Furthermore, these strings can be
concatenated (and then simplified via the cancellation rule) to combine
paths. Every path is also invertible via reversal (since traversing the
same color twice equals returning to the node you came from), so you can
have a kind of additive algebra going with these paths.

My goal with this structure was to figure out a consistent way to define
product paths and then fractional paths (by analogy of going from
integers to fractions to support inverse multiplication), and then take
some kind of limit to form a kind of fractal version of the reals, but
sadly I never got past the first step.  :-P (Or maybe that is fortunate,
since if it was successful, any "physics" based on the resulting "number
system" -- if it can even be called that -- would be so alien that
probably I myself would be unable to do anything interesting with it,
much less create anything that even remotely resembles a "universe".
:-P)


[...]
> >On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 02:13:55PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> >> --- On Tue, 4/23/13, George Corley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> > There is evidence to suggest that humans naturally perceive
> >> > quantities in terms of a logarithmic scale, and only learn to
> >> > understand them on a linear scale when they learn their language's
> >> > numeral system.
> >>
> >> Makes sense. Just look at our natural number system:
> >>
> >> none
> >> one
> >> a couple
> >> a few
> >> a handful
> >> a lot
> >> buckets
> >> a shitload
> >> infinity / sands on the shore / stars in the sky
> >>
> >> Fits that curve to a tee.
> 
> Yup!  Here's another take:
>   http://inform7.com/extensions/Emily%20Short/Assorted%20Text%20Generation/source_1.html
> 
> To go completely offtopic, this reminds me of a hack I thought of but
> haven't had the opportunity to use: in an interactive fiction or some
> other sort of broad-concept game wherein the bitwidth available to
> store multiplicity of an item is small, take advantage of this
> logarithmicity and store it using a little scientific notation.  Then
> embrace perceptual fuzziness by randomizing the rounding when you have
> to subtract quantities (e.g. if you throw away one pebble from your
> sack containing many pebbles and the epsilon of your scientific
> notation at this magnitude is N, it actually does nothing N-1 times
> out of N and throws away N of them one time out of N).  And if
> instructed to count the items precisely but the epsilon is too much
> greater than 1, you could object in classic IF style with "You have
> better things to do with your time." :)

Interesting idea indeed! (And funny that Emily Short showed up on
CONLANG... though I don't know her personally, she *is* rather
well-known in some circles, namely in the IF world.)

And speaking of large numbers, somebody took a similar idea in the other
direction and created what he called a "hyper-calculator", the motto of
which is "go ahead, try and make me overflow!" The basic idea was to
generalize scientific notation beyond mere exponentiation, to tetration
(iterated exponentiation, aka power towers). That is to say, instead of
storing the mantissa plus an exponent of 10 (like A*10^B), one would
store a mantissa, plus the height of a power tower of 10 (like A*10^^B,
where ^^ denotes nested exponentiation by B levels). Of course, since
the last number in such a power tower essentially completely dominates
the value of the tower, the last exponent is stored with additional
precision (IIRC, as a usual 32-bit/64-bit IEEE float), whereas all
intermediate tower levels are compressed to just a single integer.

The basic observation is that once numbers get past a certain magnitude,
usual operations like +, -, *, /, ^, no longer "significantly change"
their value.  Or, more precisely, once numbers get large enough, the
usual notation schemes we use to distinguish between the smaller numbers
will be unable to distinguish between the larger numbers, even if their
actual values are hugely different. Compare, for example, in scientific
notation, 1.2*10^10000 vs. (1.2*10^10000)+5000.  Even though the second
number is 5000 more than the first, if you were to write it in
scientific notation, it's still 1.2*10^10000, because at that level of
magnitude, 5000 is mere roundoff error. If you were writing numbers in
tetrational notation, even things like multiplication or exponentiation
would no longer "significantly change" the value. If your number is,
say, 3^3^3^3^3^3^3, and you exponentiate it to 5000, say, that only
changes the coefficient of the *second* 3 in the tower; the overall
value of the exponent is still so huge that the two numbers are still
essentially the same in conventional notation. Thus, + and * become
approximately the same as maximization (the value of the larger number
will so completely overwhelm the smaller number, that the result would
be the larger number plus some roundoff error), and - and /
approximately the same as minimization (if A's tetrational "exponent" is
larger than B's, then B/A is essentially 0; if B's tetrational exponent
is larger than A's, then the result is essentially equal to B). This
allows one to store gigantic numbers and perform operations on them with
*some* degree of precision.

The result was a very interesting little toy program that allowed you to
calculate ludicrously huge numbers that would cause normal calculator
programs (even one that supported BigInts or BigFloats) to throw up
their hands and say "that number's too big for my little brain, I can't
tell you the answer". You can, for example, calculate one million's
100th factorial (i.e., (10^6)!!!!!...!!, with a hundred !'s), or the
factorial of a googolplex, or googolplex exponentiated to a googolplex,
or, as the author jokingly suggests, the size of the US national debt,
without ever overflowing. Of course, most of the results are only
approximations, but when you're talking about such gigantic numbers,
it's not like you could tell the difference anyway! (Remember roundoff
errors above.) I was genuinely surprised at how difficult it is to even
get near the point when hypercalc would overflow. I don't think I ever
succeeded, because tetration is not a basic operation you can perform,
and trying to overwhelm a tetrational number representation when the
most powerful tool you have is exponentiation, is like trying to climb
Mt. Everest with one leg and no grapple.


> >Except that last one. :)
> >
> >Well, depending on whether a *literal* infinity is meant, or what
> >most people's intuition of infinity is, which, in general, is roughly
> >about 10^10 or so (probably much less), as I mentioned in another
> >thread.
> >
> >Read up on Graham's number sometime, and watch your intuition of
> >infinity explode, many many times over. :) [...]
> 
> Yes, though John Baez has been writing within the last several months
> on interesting analogies between the algorithmic tools used in
> constructions of mindbogglingly large finite numbers and the different
> sorts of sequences you need to construct large (infinite) ordinals as
> limit ordinals, so in some sense doing the former and saying you're
> way way short of the latter is... lacking in imagination.  I wish I
> had a concise citation of this stuff to hand (I'll follow up if I find
> one), but it's presumably somewhere in the archives of
> http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/.

Well, I wasn't trying to belittle anyone for leaping from a few million
to infinity; I was just trying to demonstrate, if only in a very small
way, just how huge "infinity" really is.

As for analogies between algorithms, large finite numbers, and
transfinite numbers, yes, once you get to a certain level, it seems that
the very same structures repeat themselves, just on different levels.

To construct huge numbers, for example, one starts with iteration, then
diagonalization, then iteration, etc., and then eventually you
diagonalize over the entire process of diagonalization, then abstract
that as a single iteration of a much larger operation, and then
diagonalize *that*, and so on.

The exact same process happens when you try to construct large recursive
ordinals: start with omega (the first transfinite ordinal), then
repeatedly iterate and diagonalize, ad infinitum, and you build up the
hierarchy of countable ordinals.

This even translates to the realm of large cardinals: Take the first
infinite cardinal Aleph_0, then take the powerset operation as your
iterative step, and repeatedly diagonalize and iterate it, and
eventually you apply the exact same processes you use to construct large
finite numbers (respectively large ordinals) and you obtain a hierarchy
of increasingly large cardinals. The same patterns apply, even though
the resulting cardinals, in terms of absolute magnitude, as *far* larger
than any recursive ordinal.

So in an ironical sense, while the set theorists are off in their own
Cantorian paradise constructing infinite objects far beyond any mortal's
imagination, the exact same processes may be applied to the *finite*
numbers to obtain unimaginably huge integers that, ironically, are all
already subsumed by the first countable ordinal omega. :)

In another sense, though, these large (integers | transfinite ordinals |
large cardinals) are in a way "equivalent", in that they represent the
extremities of what mathematicians have been able to construct within
their respective domains -- the large integers constructed in this
manner are in the upper reaches of the set of natural numbers ("upper
reaches" as in how far *we've* managed to reach), or large recursive
ordinals below omega_1 -- but getting pretty darn close to it -- or
large cardinals at the frontier of the current set theories.


> >So, logarithmic scale? If people only knew how inconceivably huge a
> >leap they're making when they say things like "1, 2, 3, ...
> >infinity!". :)
> 
> If only people knew how inconceivably huge a leap they're making when
> they say "one, a half, a third, ..., zero"!
[...]

Heh. This reminds me of an interesting exercise I did once, in
classifying monotonic functions over the reals into a linear hierarchy
of "growth rate magnitudes". The basic idea is that if f/g diverges to
+infinity at x->infinity, then mag(f) > mag(g), and vice versa. This
produced an interesting linear structure in which the reals are
embedded, but there are also infinite hierarchies of infinitesimals and
infinite "numbers". Functions that grow to infinity are assigned
positive "magnitude numbers"; functions that shrink to zero have
negative "magnitude numbers"; and functions that converge to a constant
have zero magnitude number. But the zero function f(x)=0 defied
classification, because it required a magnitude number smaller than
every other magnitude number (including infinite negative magnitudes!).
It would have to be some kind of negative "absolute infinity" (keep in
mind that the fastest functions to shrink to zero, are the reciprocals
of fast-growing functions, like the ones that produce unimaginably huge
finite numbers, so we're talking about the entire hierarchy of
fast-growing functions in their reciprocal forms being outdone by
f(x)=0).

*That* is indeed a *huge* leap in going from non-zero to zero!  And
after all, it took mathematicians centuries, at least, to even grasp the
concept of zero. :)


On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:29:18PM -0700, Padraic Brown wrote:
> --- On Wed, 4/24/13, H. S. Teoh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > > Just look at our natural number system:
> > > 
> > > none
> > > one
> > > a couple
> > > a few
> > > a handful
> > > a lot
> > > buckets
> > > a shitload
> > > infinity / sands on the shore / stars in the sky
> > > 
> > > Fits that curve to a tee.
> > 
> > Except that last one. :)
> > 
> > Well, depending on whether a *literal* infinity is meant, or what
> > most people's intuition of infinity is, which, in general, is
> > roughly about 10^10 or so (probably much less), as I mentioned in
> > another thread.
> 
> Obviously the mathematical concept is nt what is intended here!
> "Infinity" just means "have no frikkin clue how many there are, but
> there's boatloads of shitloads of em!"

Yes, I gathered as much. ;-)


> It could mean a number as small as perhaps some millions, right on up
> into poly-squintillion range.

Ah, but see, that's just what I was getting at. Our intuitive grasp of
large numbers basically stops somewhere around this "poly-squintillion"
range, which, mathematically speaking, lies somewhere around 10^10.
Beyond that, we simply can't discern magnitudes anymore (except via
mathematical notations that we don't fully comprehend intuitively). It's
like looking out the horizon and seeing a mountain peak, not realizing
that they are actually multiple peaks very distant from each other, but
collapsed into a single peak in our view due to their great distance and
our view angle.

I didn't intend to belittle your categorization of perceptible numbers;
I just wanted to impart some sense of awe at the "true magnitude" of
infinity (if such were even possible!) -- the same kind of awe one gets
when one looks out at a distant peak across a wide ocean, and realizes
the huge distance in between (and thereby the immense height of said
peak) -- and then, looking up at the night sky and seeing the moon, and
realizing that the moon is so many orders of magnitude farther than any
mountain peak could ever be, and glimpse for a brief moment the vastness
of space between the Earth and moon. (And then peeking at the dawning
sun, and feeling overwhelmed at how incredibly huge it must be, once we
begin to realize, in an inadequate way, the vast distance between it and
us.  And then looking out at the rest of the Milky Way, and realizing
that our distance to the sun is no more than a microscopic speck between
two adjacent stars in that cloud of countless millions; ... and then
looking through the telescope at distant galaxies, etc..)

And after all that, realizing that we haven't even begun the first step
toward infinity. :)


> > Read up on Graham's number sometime, and watch your intuition of
> > infinity explode, many many times over. :) 
> 
> Dunno what any of that means. They lost me at "According to physicist
> John Baez...", when I immediately thought, gee, I didn't know Joan
> Baez was a physicist AND a folksinger!! By the time all those grilled
> G sandwiches came along, I was already over on Youtube listening to
> Blowing in the Wind, which is where all of mathematics leads us in the
> end anyway! ;)))

Hahaha... :)


[...]
> > In the grand scheme of things, Graham's number is actually a rather
> > small-ish finite number (there are far larger *computable* numbers
> > that can be constructed, not to mention non-computable ones that
> > mathematicians like to toss around every now and then), 

> Sure. In stead of stopping at 64 layers (as I understand it) why not
> just bump it up to some outrageously high shitload of layers? :) Thus:
> 
>       P = G^^...^^G } a shitload of layers

Well, it's not even that... these 64 layers, if they can be called that,
aren't layers in the sense of being roughly proportional in size. They
are anything *but* proportional; the distance between g_2 and g_3 is so
unimaginable, as to make the distance between g_1 and g_2 a laughable
joke. Every subsequent step in that sequence blasts you into a whole new
ball game so distant, as to make all previous steps microscopically
small by comparison. To the extent that analogies can help, think of g_1
to g_2 as here to the mountain on the horizon, and g_2 to g_3 from here
to the next galaxy. (Though this is a vast underestimation, as the true
magnitude of g_2 to g_3 is so big it's gazillions of *universes* away,
if g_1 to g_2 were from here to the horizon. But that wouldn't be
helpful for our intuition to grasp, and therefore, not a good analogy.
:-P)

But in the grand scheme of things, the G sequence is a "relatively"
slow-growing one. "Relatively", of course, to other ridiculously
fast-growing things, the vast majority of which are simply beyond our
ability to intuit. The G sequence is already stupendously fast-growing,
yet there other monsters out there that make the entire G sequence look
like grandma's pet turtle crawling in its sleep. IOW, it's not just a
matter of adding more layers -- you could add more layers to the G
sequence until the universe dies in a cold heat death, and it still
would not even begin to hold half a candle to a "slightly"
faster-growing sequence. There are entire hierarchies of these
sequences, and the G sequence is but one of the bottom-rung members. One
could name names -- Gamma_0, Veblen, etc., but that doesn't really
convey just how stupendous these things are. Like I said, this is way
out there beyond the blue yonder, and our intuition simply falls flat
long before it even reaches the realm where these things live.
Name-dropping only gives meaningless arcane symbols that are completely
opaque to those not already acquianted with the beasts themselves.

(And we haven't started getting into things that mathematicians can only
define, but cannot be computed. And this is not because mathematicians
lack the finesse to compute them; they are so crazily insanely
insert-your-favorite-superlatively huge, that they cannot be computed
even in *theory*. And yet, in a weird paradoxical way, they are actual
finite numbers with actual, fixed values. And, being finite numbers, we
know there are infinitudes more numbers after them -- but at that point,
we have exhausted even the limits of mathematical theory to go much
farther, and beyond lie vast oceans of numbers forever beyond our grasp
and our ability to define. And yet, they are all merely finite... and we
have still only barely begun our journey into infinity. :-P)


> > but it's far, far, beyond most people's ability to grasp mentally. 
> 
> Well, in all honesty, I think most people have difficulties with
> numbers as low as the middling thousands. Anything beyond that range
> of distant but graspable numbers is what I mean by "infinity" above. 

Yep. And to be fair, even the mathematically-inclined among us can
probably no more grasp the middling thousands than the average person.
We deal with larger quantities only via abstract handles -- names like
"millions" and "billions" and "bazillions", the true magnitude of which
I doubt we really understand in the same intuitive way as we understand,
say, a group of 5 or 6 objects lying on our desk. In that sense, the
fancy notations of mathematicians are not that much different from
"bazillions", "gazillions", or "garzillions" -- they are all opaque
labels for far vaster quantities than our small minds can fully
comprehend. Yes, the mathematical notations may be more precise, and, at
least in theory, amenable to actual computation (well, in most cases
:-P) given enough time and paper, or computational power, if we employ a
computer to do the grunt work for us. (And "enough time" may well last
more than several lifetimes of the universe.) But do we truly understand
what they signify? We can manipulate via rules of algebra, yes, but I
doubt they have any true meaning for us, in the sense of our being able
to intuitively grasp their magnitude.

An amusing thought-experiment is to consider this: what's the biggest
number of individual items can you visualize simultaneously, before your
brain starts thinking in terms of digits rather than actual numbers of
things? My guess is that this is probably well below 100 (probably more
like 50 or less). And then, how many numbers can you deal with by
handling their digits *mentally* (i.e.  without writing them down or
typing them out on the computer), before you start thinking about the
number of digits they have? For example, a million has 6 digits, and
when dealing with quantities in that range like the hundred thousands or
the umpteen millions, we generally deal with the *number of digits*
rather than the individual digits themselves. This is where we bust out
our scientific notation and start writing things like 1.2*10^9 (i.e.,
1.2 billion) instead of 1,283,491,701. And this is about as far as most
people can get -- anything significantly larger, and it's "practically
infinity". At the extreme upper end of this range is things like a
googol, which we really only understand as a number of digits,
definitely not the individual digits themselves.

Past this point are essentially "imaginary" constructs like googolplex,
which we abstractly understand as 1 followed by a googol zeroes -- but
what that means, is practically opaque to us. Do we really know what a
googol zeroes look like? I think not: it's a mere abstraction at this
point. Mathematically well-defined, yes, but devoid of any concrete
meaning as far as our intuition is concerned. 

So really, about 50 or 100 is as far as we can go unaided; in the
thousands or tens of thousands if we deal with digits (at which point
things start to get more abstract and less concrete). After that we're
dealing with *numbers* of digits, and this is about as far as we can
get. Everything beyond is opaque abstraction with no real intuitive
meaning for us -- we can only proceed via mechanical application of
mathematical rules.


> > I mean, even g_1 alone (the first of 64 steps in the sequence that
> > leads to Graham's number, g_64) is already far beyond a normal
> > human's ability to fully comprehend. 
> 
> I don't see this as a problem, because of the above. There are
> squillions of far smaller numbers that are equally far beyond most
> people's comprehension. All those numbers above G, or even P, are just
> so much more icing an already incomprehensibly large cake.

Or rather, the numbers we *can* deal with are merely the tip of the
icing, and the rest of the cake is incomprehensibly large. ;)


> > The number of times you can take logarithms of it before it becomes
> > a conceivable number is so large, that it's not significantly
> > smaller than g_1 itself!  And yet it is but the first step towards
> > Graham's number. Which is laughably small compared to other
> > computable finite numbers. Which, in turn, are laughably small
> > compared to various uncomputable numbers that mathematicians grapple
> > with every now and then. And then you've only begun the first baby
> > step towards infinity...
> 
> Exactly. And yet, your average nine year old throws that number around
> like it's childs play! ;)

Well, hey, the mathematically-enlightened also throw around things like
transfinite ordinals and large cardinals like child's play, even though
both are *infinite* quantities that nobody can truly fully comprehend.
After a while, one just gets the feeling that one is merely doing
symbol-pushing -- writing and rewriting a bunch of completely opaque
squiggles on paper according to some fixed rules, with no real intuitive
understanding of just what exactly one is manipulating underneath the
abstraction.


> > So, logarithmic scale? If people only knew how inconceivably
> > huge a leap they're making when they say things like "1, 2, 3, ...
> > infinity!". :)
> 
> But that is exactly my point! We intuitively know, deeply understand
> this leap. It's just that math and, well, the NUMBERS themselves, just
> get in the way!
[...]

Actually, I argue that we *don't* understand this leap. We only
understand it in an abstract way, without true comprehension of
everything that it entails. It's a mere abstraction of the fact that,
instead of saying "yes" to "is this number X larger than your number?"
after a certain point, we simply turn a deaf ear on the question and say
"no" regardless of what X is, thereby inventing a "number" that's larger
than any number anyone can name. But our intuition of "any number anyone
can name" is likely only in the ten thousands at the most, or much less
than that (I'd say about 50 if that question was posed in the
schoolyard, for example).

In that sense, our intuition of "infinity" is really only about 10,000
or so. Of course, since we made a decision to say "no" to whatever
number one may name, should somebody actually name, say, 20,000, we'd
still say "no", but at that point, we'd have to subconsciously adjust
our mental model of "infinity" to something a tad larger -- 1 million,
say. Then when somebody confronts us with 2 million, we'd turn the knob
up to, oh, 50 million perhaps? Or 100 million? But already, we're in the
abstract realm of -illions; we only have a vague idea of what it really
means.  (And the proof of that is that a "zillion" is approximately
around a "million", just a tad larger, maybe by, oh, a factor of 5 or
so? Which shows that our intuition is already at a loss as to how big a
million really is.) We *know* it's supposed to be bigger than any
number, but the problem is our concept of "any number" is still only in
the range of 10^10 or so. So long as no one challenges us to it, we'd be
quite happy to leave it at that, even while knowing at the back of our
mind that *should* a larger number ever come along, our "infinity" would
necessarily have to trump it by conveniently increasing its value just a
tad larger.

So really, our intuition of the "leap" from "1, 2, 3, ... " to
"infinity!" is really just jumping up about 10^10 or so. Which is
nowhere close to *actual* infinity. Not even close to getting started.
But, for numbers we find in everyday situations, it's "good enough".


T

-- 
VI = Visual Irritation

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 5
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007, Week 5
December 2007, Week 4
December 2007, Week 3
December 2007, Week 2
December 2007, Week 1
November 2007, Week 5
November 2007, Week 4
November 2007, Week 3
November 2007, Week 2
November 2007, Week 1
October 2007, Week 5
October 2007, Week 4
October 2007, Week 3
October 2007, Week 2
October 2007, Week 1
September 2007, Week 5
September 2007, Week 4
September 2007, Week 3
September 2007, Week 2
September 2007, Week 1
August 2007, Week 5
August 2007, Week 4
August 2007, Week 3
August 2007, Week 2
August 2007, Week 1
July 2007, Week 5
July 2007, Week 4
July 2007, Week 3
July 2007, Week 2
July 2007, Week 1
June 2007, Week 5
June 2007, Week 4
June 2007, Week 3
June 2007, Week 2
June 2007, Week 1
May 2007, Week 5
May 2007, Week 4
May 2007, Week 3
May 2007, Week 2
May 2007, Week 1
April 2007, Week 5
April 2007, Week 4
April 2007, Week 3
April 2007, Week 2
April 2007, Week 1
March 2007, Week 5
March 2007, Week 4
March 2007, Week 3
March 2007, Week 2
March 2007, Week 1
February 2007, Week 4
February 2007, Week 3
February 2007, Week 2
February 2007, Week 1
January 2007, Week 5
January 2007, Week 4
January 2007, Week 3
January 2007, Week 2
January 2007, Week 1
December 2006, Week 5
December 2006, Week 4
December 2006, Week 3
December 2006, Week 2
December 2006, Week 1
November 2006, Week 5
November 2006, Week 4
November 2006, Week 3
November 2006, Week 2
November 2006, Week 1
October 2006, Week 5
October 2006, Week 4
October 2006, Week 3
October 2006, Week 2
October 2006, Week 1
September 2006, Week 5
September 2006, Week 4
September 2006, Week 3
September 2006, Week 2
September 2006, Week 1
August 2006, Week 5
August 2006, Week 4
August 2006, Week 3
August 2006, Week 2
August 2006, Week 1
July 2006, Week 5
July 2006, Week 4
July 2006, Week 3
July 2006, Week 2
July 2006, Week 1
June 2006, Week 5
June 2006, Week 4
June 2006, Week 3
June 2006, Week 2
June 2006, Week 1
May 2006, Week 5
May 2006, Week 4
May 2006, Week 3
May 2006, Week 2
May 2006, Week 1
April 2006, Week 5
April 2006, Week 4
April 2006, Week 3
April 2006, Week 2
April 2006, Week 1
March 2006, Week 5
March 2006, Week 4
March 2006, Week 3
March 2006, Week 2
March 2006, Week 1
February 2006, Week 4
February 2006, Week 3
February 2006, Week 2
February 2006, Week 1
January 2006, Week 5
January 2006, Week 4
January 2006, Week 3
January 2006, Week 2
January 2006, Week 1
December 2005, Week 5
December 2005, Week 4
December 2005, Week 3
December 2005, Week 2
December 2005, Week 1
November 2005, Week 5
November 2005, Week 4
November 2005, Week 3
November 2005, Week 2
November 2005, Week 1
October 2005, Week 5
October 2005, Week 4
October 2005, Week 3
October 2005, Week 2
October 2005, Week 1
September 2005, Week 5
September 2005, Week 4
September 2005, Week 3
September 2005, Week 2
September 2005, Week 1
August 2005, Week 5
August 2005, Week 4
August 2005, Week 3
August 2005, Week 2
August 2005, Week 1
July 2005, Week 5
July 2005, Week 4
July 2005, Week 3
July 2005, Week 2
July 2005, Week 1
June 2005, Week 5
June 2005, Week 4
June 2005, Week 3
June 2005, Week 2
June 2005, Week 1
May 2005, Week 5
May 2005, Week 4
May 2005, Week 3
May 2005, Week 2
May 2005, Week 1
April 2005, Week 5
April 2005, Week 4
April 2005, Week 3
April 2005, Week 2
April 2005, Week 1
March 2005, Week 5
March 2005, Week 4
March 2005, Week 3
March 2005, Week 2
March 2005, Week 1
February 2005, Week 4
February 2005, Week 3
February 2005, Week 2
February 2005, Week 1
January 2005, Week 5
January 2005, Week 4
January 2005, Week 3
January 2005, Week 2
January 2005, Week 1
December 2004, Week 5
December 2004, Week 4
December 2004, Week 3
December 2004, Week 2
December 2004, Week 1
November 2004, Week 5
November 2004, Week 4
November 2004, Week 3
November 2004, Week 2
November 2004, Week 1
October 2004, Week 5
October 2004, Week 4
October 2004, Week 3
October 2004, Week 2
October 2004, Week 1
September 2004, Week 5
September 2004, Week 4
September 2004, Week 3
September 2004, Week 2
September 2004, Week 1
August 2004, Week 5
August 2004, Week 4
August 2004, Week 3
August 2004, Week 2
August 2004, Week 1
July 2004, Week 5
July 2004, Week 4
July 2004, Week 3
July 2004, Week 2
July 2004, Week 1
June 2004, Week 5
June 2004, Week 4
June 2004, Week 3
June 2004, Week 2
June 2004, Week 1
May 2004, Week 5
May 2004, Week 4
May 2004, Week 3
May 2004, Week 2
May 2004, Week 1
April 2004, Week 5
April 2004, Week 4
April 2004, Week 3
April 2004, Week 2
April 2004, Week 1
March 2004, Week 5
March 2004, Week 4
March 2004, Week 3
March 2004, Week 2
March 2004, Week 1
February 2004, Week 5
February 2004, Week 4
February 2004, Week 3
February 2004, Week 2
February 2004, Week 1
January 2004, Week 5
January 2004, Week 4
January 2004, Week 3
January 2004, Week 2
January 2004, Week 1
December 2003, Week 5
December 2003, Week 4
December 2003, Week 3
December 2003, Week 2
December 2003, Week 1
November 2003, Week 5
November 2003, Week 4
November 2003, Week 3
November 2003, Week 2
November 2003, Week 1
October 2003, Week 5
October 2003, Week 4
October 2003, Week 3
October 2003, Week 2
October 2003, Week 1
September 2003, Week 5
September 2003, Week 4
September 2003, Week 3
September 2003, Week 2
September 2003, Week 1
August 2003, Week 5
August 2003, Week 4
August 2003, Week 3
August 2003, Week 2
August 2003, Week 1
July 2003, Week 5
July 2003, Week 4
July 2003, Week 3
July 2003, Week 2
July 2003, Week 1
June 2003, Week 5
June 2003, Week 4
June 2003, Week 3
June 2003, Week 2
June 2003, Week 1
May 2003, Week 5
May 2003, Week 4
May 2003, Week 3
May 2003, Week 2
May 2003, Week 1
April 2003, Week 5
April 2003, Week 4
April 2003, Week 3
April 2003, Week 2
April 2003, Week 1
March 2003, Week 5
March 2003, Week 4
March 2003, Week 3
March 2003, Week 2
March 2003, Week 1
February 2003, Week 4
February 2003, Week 3
February 2003, Week 2
February 2003, Week 1
January 2003, Week 5
January 2003, Week 4
January 2003, Week 3
January 2003, Week 2
January 2003, Week 1
December 2002, Week 5
December 2002, Week 4
December 2002, Week 3
December 2002, Week 2
December 2002, Week 1
November 2002, Week 5
November 2002, Week 4
November 2002, Week 3
November 2002, Week 2
November 2002, Week 1
October 2002, Week 5
October 2002, Week 4
October 2002, Week 3
October 2002, Week 2
October 2002, Week 1
September 2002, Week 5
September 2002, Week 4
September 2002, Week 3
September 2002, Week 2
September 2002, Week 1
August 2002, Week 5
August 2002, Week 4
August 2002, Week 3
August 2002, Week 2
August 2002, Week 1
July 2002, Week 5
July 2002, Week 4
July 2002, Week 3
July 2002, Week 2
July 2002, Week 1
June 2002, Week 5
June 2002, Week 4
June 2002, Week 3
June 2002, Week 2
June 2002, Week 1
May 2002, Week 5
May 2002, Week 4
May 2002, Week 3
May 2002, Week 2
May 2002, Week 1
April 2002, Week 5
April 2002, Week 4
April 2002, Week 3
April 2002, Week 2
April 2002, Week 1
March 2002, Week 5
March 2002, Week 4
March 2002, Week 3
March 2002, Week 2
March 2002, Week 1
February 2002, Week 4
February 2002, Week 3
February 2002, Week 2
February 2002, Week 1
January 2002, Week 5
January 2002, Week 4
January 2002, Week 3
January 2002, Week 2
January 2002, Week 1
December 2001, Week 5
December 2001, Week 4
December 2001, Week 3
December 2001, Week 2
December 2001, Week 1
November 2001, Week 5
November 2001, Week 4
November 2001, Week 3
November 2001, Week 2
November 2001, Week 1
October 2001, Week 5
October 2001, Week 4
October 2001, Week 3
October 2001, Week 2
October 2001, Week 1
September 2001, Week 5
September 2001, Week 4
September 2001, Week 3
September 2001, Week 2
September 2001, Week 1
August 2001, Week 5
August 2001, Week 4
August 2001, Week 3
August 2001, Week 2
August 2001, Week 1
July 2001, Week 5
July 2001, Week 4
July 2001, Week 3
July 2001, Week 2
July 2001, Week 1
June 2001, Week 5
June 2001, Week 4
June 2001, Week 3
June 2001, Week 2
June 2001, Week 1
May 2001, Week 5
May 2001, Week 4
May 2001, Week 3
May 2001, Week 2
May 2001, Week 1
April 2001, Week 5
April 2001, Week 4
April 2001, Week 3
April 2001, Week 2
April 2001, Week 1
March 2001, Week 5
March 2001, Week 4
March 2001, Week 3
March 2001, Week 2
March 2001, Week 1
February 2001, Week 4
February 2001, Week 3
February 2001, Week 2
February 2001, Week 1
January 2001, Week 5
January 2001, Week 4
January 2001, Week 3
January 2001, Week 2
January 2001, Week 1
December 2000, Week 5
December 2000, Week 4
December 2000, Week 3
December 2000, Week 2
December 2000, Week 1
November 2000, Week 5
November 2000, Week 4
November 2000, Week 3
November 2000, Week 2
November 2000, Week 1
October 2000, Week 5
October 2000, Week 4
October 2000, Week 3
October 2000, Week 2
October 2000, Week 1
September 2000, Week 5
September 2000, Week 4
September 2000, Week 3
September 2000, Week 2
September 2000, Week 1
August 2000, Week 5
August 2000, Week 4
August 2000, Week 3
August 2000, Week 2
August 2000, Week 1
July 2000, Week 5
July 2000, Week 4
July 2000, Week 3
July 2000, Week 2
July 2000, Week 1
June 2000, Week 5
June 2000, Week 4
June 2000, Week 3
June 2000, Week 2
June 2000, Week 1
May 2000, Week 5
May 2000, Week 4
May 2000, Week 3
May 2000, Week 2
May 2000, Week 1
April 2000, Week 5
April 2000, Week 4
April 2000, Week 3
April 2000, Week 2
April 2000, Week 1
March 2000, Week 5
March 2000, Week 4
March 2000, Week 3
March 2000, Week 2
March 2000, Week 1
February 2000, Week 5
February 2000, Week 4
February 2000, Week 3
February 2000, Week 2
February 2000, Week 1
January 2000, Week 5
January 2000, Week 4
January 2000, Week 3
January 2000, Week 2
January 2000, Week 1
December 1999, Week 5
December 1999, Week 4
December 1999, Week 3
December 1999, Week 2
December 1999, Week 1
November 1999, Week 5
November 1999, Week 4
November 1999, Week 3
November 1999, Week 2
November 1999, Week 1
October 1999, Week 5
October 1999, Week 4
October 1999, Week 3
October 1999, Week 2
October 1999, Week 1
September 1999, Week 5
September 1999, Week 4
September 1999, Week 3
September 1999, Week 2
September 1999, Week 1
August 1999, Week 5
August 1999, Week 4
August 1999, Week 3
August 1999, Week 2
August 1999, Week 1
July 1999, Week 5
July 1999, Week 4
July 1999, Week 3
July 1999, Week 2
July 1999, Week 1
June 1999, Week 5
June 1999, Week 4
June 1999, Week 3
June 1999, Week 2
June 1999, Week 1
May 1999, Week 5
May 1999, Week 4
May 1999, Week 3
May 1999, Week 2
May 1999, Week 1
April 1999, Week 5
April 1999, Week 4
April 1999, Week 3
April 1999, Week 2
April 1999, Week 1
March 1999, Week 5
March 1999, Week 4
March 1999, Week 3
March 1999, Week 2
March 1999, Week 1
February 1999, Week 5
February 1999, Week 4
February 1999, Week 3
February 1999, Week 2
February 1999, Week 1
January 1999, Week 5
January 1999, Week 4
January 1999, Week 3
January 1999, Week 2
January 1999, Week 1
December 1998, Week 5
December 1998, Week 4
December 1998, Week 3
December 1998, Week 2
December 1998, Week 1
November 1998, Week 5
November 1998, Week 4
November 1998, Week 3
November 1998, Week 2
November 1998, Week 1
October 1998, Week 5
October 1998, Week 4
October 1998, Week 3
October 1998, Week 2
October 1998, Week 1
September 1998, Week 5
September 1998, Week 4
September 1998, Week 3

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager