From cowan@ccil.org Fri Jul 07 12:51:10 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3685 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 19:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 19:51:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 19:51:08 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02030; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:27:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:27:39 -0400 (EDT) To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] 2 maths questions In-Reply-To: <20000707023327.59179.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > It gets as thin as you like. But you don't need to go to > something as fancy as the primes. The powers of two also > get thinner and thinner all the time, and there are just > as many of them as integers. Sure. What I'm interested in is whether it makes sense to assign a single number (not one dependent on ranges) to the relative thickness of the primes and the powers of two. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know