All sign strings are random, including numbers. Some sign strings are
memorable arrays. What makes a sign string memorable is entirely due to
the contingencies (and contingencies are random) of human consensus or
tradition.

A random event belongs nowhere. No random event can intrude into a
structure. So sign strings, as random, are only reminders; they can't
have any inroad into such formal or informal systems like languages,
maths, logic, or computing. With some ommisions, Kripke had a notion
much to this effect in his idea of rule as consensus.

someone said

that Godel was proving something about a version of PM

this is incorrect

colin leslie dean has shown that

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf

CLEARLY GODEL IS MAKING SWEEPING CLAIMS ABOUT THE UNDECIDABILITY OF OTHER
FORMAL SYSTEMS JUST BASED UPON HIS P PROOF AND THUS PM

Godels proof of his incompleteness theorem used axioms from PM to make
claims about other formal systems. He uses PM to make claims about the
undecidability of other systems solely based upon the PM

godels proof is not about a version of PM .Godel uses PM to make wide
ranging claims about the undecidability of other formal systems

he states

Hence there are undecidable propositions of the form ∀x.F(x) in every
formal system that fulfills the preconditions 1, 2

and what are preconditions 1 and 2

they are the axioms of his system P and what is his system nothing but PA
and the axioms of PM particularly the axiom of reducibility

as he states

Colin leslie dean points out that Godel theorem is invalid as it uses
invalid axioms ie axiom of reducibility

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf

look
godel used the 2nd ed of PM he says

“A. Whitehead and B. Russell, Principia Mathematica, 2nd
edition,Cambridge 1925. In particular, we also reckon [b]among the axioms
of PM the axiom of infinity (in the form: there exist denumerably many
individuals),and the axioms of reducibility[/b] and of choice (for all
types)”

three independent sources have godel stating his axiom 1v is the axiom of
reducibility
M Davis translation states

As Godel says “this axiom represents the axiom of reducibility
(comprehension axiom of set theory)” (K Godel , On formally
undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems in
The undecidable , M, Davis, Raven Press, 1965,p.12-13)

http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/goedel.html

states

The highest end of action is purification; but this applies to
deliberate and not accidental action. The idea of purification of
material objects is part of the idea of sacrifice.

The Vedas enjoin action, and not their fruit; but we need to
understand their language correctly to grasp their idea. This may be
illustrated by the idea of Heaven.

Purpose, action and result are connected together like the limbs of
the body; and that is the subject matter of the Angas, "limbs" or
parts of the mantras of the Vedas.

The result of an action is achieved more by skill than Time; but if we
have done our best and yet failed, we can attribute the failure to
Time. The decay of the body may be caused by Time; but, apart from
this, the result of an action is due to the character of the impelling
force.

A detailed study is available at:

http://www.narachphilosophy.com/action_and_purification_the_method_of_interpretation...

(You may click on the link above or type the complete URL address into
your browser)

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:46:35 -0800 (PST), Keenlearner gmail.com>
wrote:

No.

I'd represent it in the following way:

R = time(now),
R = year(now),
R = month(now).