Albert could have written that for HiFi :

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not
everything that counts can be counted."

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Albert could have written that for HiFi :

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not
everything that counts can be counted."

This is true. There is actually a mathematical defintion of "uncountable
set", which means that no homomorphism exists between such a set and the set
of integers.

The set of real numbers is uncountable.

But how would you interpret Albert's statement with respect to our hobby?

The set of real numbers is uncountable.

Well maybe not by us. But it can be counted.

But how would you interpret Albert's statement with respect to our hobby?

Perhaps he meant, "Not everything that can be measured can be heard,
and not
everything that can be heard can be measured."

I would agree with the first part of that statement. Show me a sound
that cannot be measured. Arny's farts don't count.

In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Albert could have written that for HiFi :

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not
everything that counts can be counted."

This is true. There is actually a mathematical defintion of "uncountable
set", which means that no homomorphism exists between such a set and the
set of integers.

The set of real numbers is uncountable.

For me it's a little bit like if you was speaking chinese. ;-)

But how would you interpret Albert's statement with respect to our hobby?

Just that it could be *the* subjectivist's motto

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
In , Robert Morein wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Albert could have written that for HiFi :

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not
everything that counts can be counted."

This is true. There is actually a mathematical defintion of "uncountable
set", which means that no homomorphism exists between such a set and the
set of integers.

The set of real numbers is uncountable.

For me it's a little bit like if you was speaking chinese. ;-)

Intuitively, we count by labeling things with integers. Ie., Charlie Chan
has "number one son", "number two son", etc. So Charlie's sons are a finite,
countable set. There are also infinite countable sets. For example, if a
particle is contained within an infinitely tall energy well, then the set of
quantum states is an infinite countable set. It is hard to find examples of
infinite countable sets in the real world.

But we can't label the set of colors so that each color corresponds to an
integer. There are too many of them. Each color can be given a real number,
or a set of three reals, one for each of the primaries, which also means
that the set of colors corresponds in some way to the set of reals, not
integers.

I think you are right; it could be the subjectivist's motto. The
subjectivist probably believes in free will, and therefore, that the mind
has an infinity of states, and therefore, an infinity of preferences. I ride
the fence on that one.