
Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Posted:
Jun 12, 2009 1:10 PM


Topic: "Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics" Replies: 0
Search Thread: Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Watch this Topic
Back to Topic List
Martin Michael Musatov
Posts: 786 Registered: 4/19/09 "Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics" Posted: Jun 12, 2009 1:08 PM Plain Text Reply
Forwarded conversation Subject: Re: Cantor's argument is erroneous 
From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com
Marshall wrote: > On May 15, 9:27 pm, lwal...@lausd.net wrote: > > > > So what impact does this have on the Nguyen debate? I don't > > know whether Nguyen has access to Stoll, nor do I know whether > > Shoenfield mentions the Deduction Theorem. > > Or perhaps we could all, like, learn to think for ourselves, and > analyze arguments on their merits, instead of using pull quotes > from books. > > > Marshall This is what I do.  Martin Musatov  From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Sun, May 24, 2009 at 11:56 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com
Chris Menzel wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 11:26:35 0600, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> > said: > >> > >> Ok, on the assumption that you really just don't get it and are not > >> being disingenuous, I'll give it one last try. The problem (as I and > >> others have already noted) is that, whether you are able to > >> acknowledge it youself, to make sense of your own claim about what is > >> at stake, you yourself have to be presupposing a background language. > > > > *Where* specifically did I *insist* we don't have "_a_ background > > language", when talking about formulas and formal systems? > > I'll have to admit I only inferred it from the fact that you seemed > unwilling simply to say precisely what the language of your theory T was > supposed to be. > > > Didn't I mention in the thread more than one time you can discern a > > language from formulas, axioms, given some syntactical conventions > > about logical symbols and variable symbols? > > Perhaps we can in some cases (it will not work for specifying infinite > languages), but this is not the convention. For some reason, you want > to ignore the fact that your approach is not standard (and not general) > and hence you cannot justifiably assume that others are following it. > > >> Why? Because you are talking about a *theory* T. And (as defined by > >> Shoenfield), a theory is a formal system and, by definition, a formal > >> system is formal language together with a proof theory, i.e., axioms > >> + rules of inference. So, just for definitional reason alone, your > >> reference to a theory presupposes that there is a specific language > >> in which it is formulated. Now, perhaps that is not what you mean by > >> "theory", but if you wish to communicate with others about > >> firstorder theories, you have to use the conventional definitions > >> that everyone has agreed upon or, at least, provide alternatives of > >> your own. So if you are not using the word "theory" in a way that > >> presupposes a background language, then you will have to provide an > >> alternative. > > > > Again, "Why?" what? > > Er, well: why do you need explicitly to specify the language of a > purported theory? If you only specify axioms without specifying a > background language, you don't yet have a theory. So when you talked > about your single axiom *theory* T, what you were saying had no fixed > meaning (except perhaps for those following your nonstandard convention > noted above) because you did not specify the background language. You > may have *intended* that it be the language consisting of the > nonlogical symbols of your axiom  i.e., as it turns out, the language > of pure FOL=  but, as noted, the universal practice in mathematical > logic is to specify one's background theory explicitly; there is no > general convention that it can be inferred from a given set of axioms. > So you needed to say explicitly what background language you intended in > order for your question about the theorems of your theory could be > answered. HTH. > > > Again, my question to you was: > > > >>> So, what ... does *your* "_the language_" there refer to? > > Well, obviously, I can't answer specifically, of course, because I don't > know. It refers to whatever language you intended as the background > language for your theory which (according to the conventions of > mathematical logic) cannot be inferred from a set of axioms. > > In case the point is not clear, suppose I know you have several > computers of various sorts and you tell me that you have a computer that > is acting up and is out of warranty and you ask me where to take it for > diagnosis and I reply: > > An Apple Store, if the computer is a Mac > > My geek friend Smith, if the computer is a PeeCee. > > I obviously can't tell you *specifically* what machine "the computer" > refers to there; it refers to whichever of *your* computers you meant. > But there is nothing vague about my use of the term. > > > Obviously you must have had in your mind for it to refer to a > > language; > > Yes indeed, the one you had in mind as the background language for your > theory T. > > > and I might have missed your previous reference to that language (but > > isn't that kind of normal in a dialog?). Why do you seem to have refused > > answering _that question_, when it was asked simply for the sake of > > clarification? > > Hope the above helps you understand why I, lacking telepathic skills, > can't give you an exact answer. > > > If you yourself happened to get confused as to what _that question_ was > > about, admit it and I'd rephrase it for clarity. Don't just "bury" it > > by attacking your opponent with something else (e.g. right below) > >> Otherwise, your claims are literally meaningless and you cannot be > >> taken seriously. > > Really, this was by no means intended as an attack. It is just a simple > fact that, if you do not use words that depart from their conventional > meanings, claims that use those words are meaningless (more exactly, > incapable of being interpreted). > > > For the nth time, Chris Menzel, my talk of formal system or theory > > always includes an assumed background language. > > And, I guess, I am now to understand that it was the language of pure > FOL=. Ok, fine, then I guess the simple answer to your question was NO. > There are no theorems of your theory T, in the language of pure FOL=, > that contain nonlogical symbols not found in the axiom of T. > > > It's only when such background language is *vacuous* that I claim > > would lead us to invalid reasoning. > > What is a vacuous background language? Please define. > > > Do you understand my talk now? > > I think I will if: > > 1. You define what a "vacuous background language" is. > > 2. You acknowledge that the language you intended as the background > language for your theory T is the language of pure FOL= that counts "=" > as a logical symbol and contains no nonlogical symbols. > > >> And that is why the answer to your question concerning what is at > >> stake is trivial: > >> > >>> At stake is: if an axiomset of a T has n nonlogical symbols (n could > >>> be infinite), then can the collection of theorems of T contain new > >>> symbols, whether or not one stipulates these new symbols? > >> > >> Again: > >> > >> YES, if the language of T contains symbols not in any axiom of T. > >> > >> NO, otherwise. > >> > >> Reply if you want to this, but as I have been doing nothing but > >> repeating myself trying to get you to understand this elementary point, > >> I'm afraid it will be a (further) waste of time to respond again to you > >> in this thread. > > > > Whether you've perceived you've waisted time isn't my issue here. > > Well, I decided to waste a little more. :) I guess I'm still not > confused you're a hopeless case, Nam. > > > You and I have nothing to disagree *about* your "No" answer here. But > > I've always maintained your "Yes" answer above would lead to invalid > > reasoning, which you've never counter that maintaining of mine. > > Now I'm lost again. I definitely missed any argument to that effect. > So you are claiming that the language of a theory cannot contain symbols > not found in any axiom of T, on pain of inevitable "invalid reasoning"? > Is that *really* your claim? Since I apparently missed it in earlier > rounds, please humor me and show me how it is that assuming (along with > Enderton, Mendelson, Schoenfield, etc) > > (*) The language of a theory T can contain symbols not found in any > axiom of T, > > leads to invalid reasoning. (I'm supposing that (*) is the source of > the problem, because it is the only assumption of any substance behind > my answer of YES above.) (C)2009 Martin Musatov P=NP(9)2009 Martin Musatov All Rights Reserved In Perpetuity  From: Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:25 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com
mikekell...@googlemail.com wrote: > On May 27, 11:37 pm, lwal...@lausd.net wrote: > > On May 27, 1:35 pm, mikekell...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 4:30 am, lwal...@lausd.net wrote: > > > > To standard theorists, anyone who doesn't accept the proofs > > > > is labeled a socalled "crank." They don't care how counterintuitive > > > > the result is  if every step of the proof is correct, then to them, > > > > that's the end of the argument. Even if they know that something > > > > is counterintuitive (such as vacuous truth), they seldom > > > > acknowledge it. They'll just state that the proof is correct, and > > > > the poster objecting to the proof is a "crank." > > > What is counterintuitive about Moeblee's proof? > > > > What's counterintuitive about it is that MoeBlee introduced the > > symbol "+" without defining it or giving axioms for it. When I tried > > to use the symbol "+" in another theory in this thread without > > giving definitions or axioms for it, Newman and others criticize me > > for using an undefined symbol. > > But you apparently want the symbol to behave like usual addition. And > yet you give no axioms involving it and say it is primitve. Won't > work. > > > MoeBlee's use of "+" is valid if and only if my use of "+" is valid. > > You're trying to use it to represent something like usual addition. > That requires axioms and/or definitions. Moeblee's proof only cares > that it is a 2place operator. That's the difference. > > For what it's worth, this was a common complaint of Tony Orlow's. He > liked to do things like "declare a unit infinity" as a primitive and > give no axioms for it, then if this was questioned he would point out > that standard theory uses undefined primitives, and it was very unfair > if he wasn't allowed to use them too. Not a very persuasive argument, > I have to say. Book: Here several methods of investigation were examined and proved fruitful. Substantive use of semantic spaces have put forward the approach according to picture similar to the art of Surikov, Borisov Musatov, Somov, or Kustodiev. Although Cantor and Mischel do not theorize about the origin of these: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7077507/Book 
"Nothingandall+"  From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:59 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com
Martin Musatov wote: Nam Nguyen wrote: > Herbert Newman wrote: > > > > "Why do you imagine, as you seem to do, that there is any point arguing > > with [a crank]?" (Torkel Franzen, sci.math, 12 Jan. 2005) > > Indeed. > >  > "To discover the proper approach to mathematical logic, > we must therefore examine the methods of the mathematician." > (Shoenfield, "Mathematical Logic") The C is a new mathematical constant, Thanks Sci math , we a few untrained mathematicians at inverse 19 learnt a lot about mathematics from your postings and your silence and this has been developed in a few hours over a few days in between work. Our purpose is not as much as provoking discussion , but the ability for us to post and issue and learn from the "Silence of the Lambs". Dimension is silent, so is the space matrix at 19. Note: That this constant cannot be reduced to Null zero and n(2Pi^20.75) is constant curve for that value of n http://groups.google.co.in/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/e62f63... contains the words "Red Dragon"  The sequel to "The Silence of The Lambs"... And it was posted (or at least to me appeared in the topic list AFTER my previous post). In breakdown, I posted a P=NP Genesis/ Riemann post containing mention of a sequel to a film title which then appeared in a new post (to me at least), AFTER. Are we in a vacuum or is there logic at play in this anomaly? I appreciate any sound feedback, the more thoughtful and considerate the better. Please do not make fun or ridicule this sincere attempt to explore a truth.  From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:40 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com
> On Jun 10, 4:42 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > On Jun 8, 8:27 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > >> Giving "exact formulation" of a rule isn't necessarily same as defending > > >> the application of it is valid! Do you understand that? > > > > > There is no "defense" needed. After an exact formulation has been > > > given (that is, the rule is recursive, or, more plainly, merely > > > clerical to apply) then it is purely mechanical or clerical to check > > > whether the rule has been correctly applied. > > > > Note your phrase "purely mechanical or clerical". If you check to > > see if a rule has been correctly applied in a "purely mechanical" > > manner, then nonlogical symbols must *mechanically* come from > > the syntactical axioms: not from a mind where they're only stipulated! > > Why? This is really your central point, but you've never explained > _why_ it must be that the nonlogical symbols comes from the > syntactical axioms. In fact, the language is simply specified, and > then we know what a WFF is. There's no need to 'derive' the language > from anything. > > I don't know what the talk about "mind" is. Specifying a formal > language is no more concrete or abstract than specifying a set of > axioms. But it seems to be giving you some serious trouble in > comprehension. Serious trouble. > > > > Checking for correct > > > application is a mere matter of applying a recursive procedure in > > > pattern matching. > > > > Right. As long as what contains the patterns is valid in the first place. > > And how do we know what "patterns" are valid? > > My answer would be something like: we specify the formal language, the > axioms, and the rules of inference. Then we know a wff is one that is > in the language. And a theorem is anything obtained from an axiom or > another theorem by a rule of inference. > > What's your answer? > > > For example, if you're formulating the theory T = {x+y=0} where L(T) = L(0,+). > > Though there might be more, the following would be axioms of T: > > > > (1) x+y=0 > > (2) x=x > > > > But what about the formula: > > > > (3) (Axyz[((xoy)/(yoz)) > xe(x*(z/x))] > Atuv[((tou)/(uov))) > te(t*(v/t))] \/ > > ExEy[~(x=y)] > > > > Would you think (3) could be *validly* proven? > > No, because (3) contains symbols not in the language of T. In fact, > (3) is not a wff at all. > > It's hard to see what the relevance of this question is, since all > formulae in the proof that was under discussion were wffs in the > language of the theory under discussion.
Dear Sci.Math,
Consider this thread an extension of my proof P=NP, and add to it this text.
Preface all of this with the knowledge all is fair in love and war, and now coldly mathematics.
Regards, Musatov
Musatov wrote: > As to the book of Psalms and The Song of Songs, there is a course to > the neverending. It constantly evolves as parameters change, but still > always the same path as we what we seek to define we by nature of our > observing change. To this there is no logic, no volume of thought, > just words to read, and numbers to granulate. And to truth, a gentle > stream. To a word, from a number, from a number to a word, from one to > infinity. > > There is no debate, no second guess. No conjecture, or oversight. No > exclusion applies, and no theories hold the awesome power it > contains. > > Infinity's loose but rigid, flexible but firm, in evolution is > universal right. In form and function, across language and guild, the > heir apparent us. Beauty is truth and truth beauty but I suspect this > is what may be meant by these words. > > It is not caste in doom failure, but refined like aromatic resin, good > gold from a furnace. To define a flaw is to label a base for words and > numbers make their case. > > At any rate, no matter the claim, they do not belong to me. I did not > choose them, nor did they choose me. Yet always the unsolved case > remains. Those decisions we make today we base in what we may learn > tomorrow. In this futures are made. > > Anonymous (Composed in honor of Bernhard Riemann) > > Preface: "E. Pluribus Unum," is Latin, and translates to ?The Many > Become One." > > > ................In.................[1]........ > > In sum, the book is recommended as an introduction to the more ...(?) > the minimum bit size of a Pproof of ?. They called a proof ... > without assuming at least P = NP, we cannot rule out the existence of > a polynomial time ... razborov@genesis.mi.ras.ru. Lev D. > Beklemishev. ... [1] http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Repository/1.0/ Disseminate%3Fhandle%3Deuclid.bsl/1182353876%26view%3Dbody%26content type%3Dpdf_1 > [P Versus NP]So, ?Genesis 24:1?3 and 9? means the book of Genesis, > chapter 24, verses 1 through 3 ...... (In a strictly Quantum > Naturalization [P=NP] novel proof sense). ... [2] http://pversusnp.wordpress.com/ > Is P Versus NP Formally Independent?P = NP asks for an efficient > procedure that finds a short proof. ...... Section 2 is the book of > Cohen [13]. For a definition of Cutting Planes and other proof > systems .... tion, manuscript, 2003. genesis.mi.ras.ru/?razborov/res > k.ps. ... [3] http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/pnp.pdf > > stdin (ditroff)ry of claimed resolutions to the question of P versus > NP. Section 2 is then de ... umn: an actual NPcompleteness proof > (one of the two most requested unpub ... based on the Old Testament > Book of Genesis.) We will of course honor re ... [4] http://www.research.att.com/~dsj/columns/col20.pdf > > The Gutnick Edition Chumash  Book of Genesis: With Rashi's ...... it > would be sufficient proof to Avraham that the time had now come > for ... 30, p. 82//.) o While Adam and Chavah were the parents of all > mankind, ...<b>book</b>s.google.com/<b>book</b>s?isbn=0972501088 > > Greatest Mystery in Modern Science?The genesis of ihis fourth Big idea > was the hohum obser ... tractable (P=NP in computer parlance!, proof > finding will be ... When you purchase a book from Amazon, the > assurance that your transaction is secure is ... [5] http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/pubs/ipod.pdf > > Could Your iPod Be Holding the Greatest Mystery in Modern Science? > Tractability The genesis of this fourth Big Idea was the hohum > observation ... The twin reality of hard prooffinding and easy proof > checking is hardly an MTVinduced aberration. ... Indeed, the day the > Jurassic1K are shown to be tractable (P=NP in ... When you purchase a > book from Amazon, the assurance that your ... [6] http://www.tnlab.ice.uec.ac.jp/nhc06/material/files/2701.html > > Infinite Order Logic and the ChurchTuring Thesis6 Jun 2006 ... > Corollary 5 P=NP in LISP. Proof: Randomness is an infinite order > process and LISP can express infinity. ... I just read his book. How > do I know all these things? ... 2.7 Future Work: The NP Computer and > Genesis ... [7] http://web.media.mit.edu/~vyzo/papers/computability.pdf > > Pseudepigrapha Journal for the Study of the Book Review: Primaeval > History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis ... (JSJ Supplement > Series, 66; Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. xx +. 408. Cloth, n.p. ISBN > 9004116583. .... need for more rigorous proofreading. Betsy > HalpernAmaru ... [8] http://jsp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/78.pdf > > Book Review: The Millennium Problems: The Seven Greatest Unsolved ... > 24 May 2000 ... who tells us that ?the proof would shed light on a > fundamental aspect of nature. ... genesis of each problem and > developing its back ground, can be grouped together. ... other six > millennium problems, but P versus NP ... [9] http://www.ams.org/notices/200308/revblank.pdf > > LNCS 3142  Feasible Proofs and Computations: Partnership and Fusion > universally agree on what is a proof and what is a computation. .... > sion of P = NP. In particular, we will address one approach to this > question based .... subject was treated in Buss's book [15] which > still remains a very good source for a .... Manuscript available at [10] http://www.genesis.mi.ras.ru/?razborov, 2002. ...[11]http:// www.springerlink.com/index/HWBD96PN120LBDBN.pdf > > Also available at [12]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week226.html ...10 > Feb 2006 ... For example, Chapter 2 of this book starts out by > defining "strong" and .... and [13] http://genesis.mi.ras.ru/~razborov/int.ps The basic point of this paper ... So, if "P is not equal to NP" > is true, it has no natural proof. ... [13] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf_ascii/week226 > > Full text of "The book of Genesis; critical edition of the > Hebrews ...The Ephesian Artemis with her many breasts {p'W) > illustrates the same idea. nnn rssi ...... On the other hand, it is > perhaps more natural to read 20 np''1 inniy^l, ...... Jacob had al > ready given practical proof of what he could do, v. ...... O.T. > Genesis. Hebrew. 1232 1896 I896 The book of Genesis PLEASE DO NOT ... > [14] http://www.archive.org/stream/bookofgenesiscri00balluoft/bookofgenesiscri00balluoft_djvu.txt > > GENESIS of PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS Part 2: The RSA Algorithm then all > NP are in P meaning that one solution ..... Phone Book. Encryption > Key. [ public ]. Decryption Key. [ secret ]. George : bfh467rÛu%+. > Alice : /&'^Grtwe35 ... him(her)self as a proof of authorship of the > contents of a document. ... [15] http://crypty.iyte.edu.tr/crypty2003/tutorials/tutorial1_2_Dr_Koltuksuz.pdf > > James Kent's Commentaries: Of the History, Progress, and Absolute ... > 3. p. 40. insists, that a primitive state of man existed before the > establishment of civil ... and temporary occupancy the only title; but > he gives no sufficient proof of the fact. The book of Genesis, which > he justly regards as the most ancient and venerable of ... N. P. 335. > 16. Co. Litt. 309. Dig. 41. 1. 20. ... [16] http://lonang.com/exlibris/kent/kent34.htm > > The Virgin Birth of Christ: Prophecies in Genesis and Isaiah > The critics take Isaiah's concluding pronouncement to the king as > proof that he ... Jay P. Green, Sr., The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew/ > English, 3 vols. ... See John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters > 139 (Grand Rapids, Mich. ... J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of > Christ (n.p.: Harper & Row, Publishers, ...[17] http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/VirginBirth/Isaiah.html > > Archives and Special Collections, University of Mississippi Red > Dragon . New York: Putnam's Sons, 1981. Uncorrected Proof. [book] ... > [1999]. Announcement of Genesis Press' publication of Deadly > Sacrifice. [document] ... Death on Scurvy Street. New York: E. P > Dutton & Company, 1929. [book]. Ben Ames Williams. Death on Scurvy > Street. N.p.: Continental Books, c.1929. [book] ... [18] http://hermes.lib.olemiss.edu/mystery/bibliography.asp > > REVIEWS and more than 500 pages, a book that is highly readable and > informative but not without .... (?) the minimum bit size of a Pproof > of ?. They called a proof ... without assuming at least P = NP, we > cannot rule out the existence of a polynomial time ... > razborov@genesis.mi.ras.ru. Lev D. Beklemishev. ... [19] http://www.math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/0802/0802005.ps > > The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah > The proofverse from Joshua not only shows ... R. Ilfa identifies that > book with Genesis because the context of Balaam's wish to die the > death of the ...<b>book</b>s.google.com/<b>book</b>s?isbn=1930143400 > > Theoretical Computer Science : On the hardness of > allocating ...Journal/book title ... so that the genesis and the > relevance of the problem can be better appreciated. .... Proof. In > [13] it is shown that a feasible solution R: V 2e attaining the > optimum of c i aec CO can be computed in 0(Mn C Mn + C ) time. ... In > this section we show that the answer is negative, unless P = NP. ... > [20] http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030439759800156X > > Ramin's Ponderings > In so many words, the P = NP question has to do with whether or not > some ... In that humorous science fiction book "The Hitchhiker's Guide > to the Galaxy. ... [21] http://raminhonary.blogspot.com/ > ACM: Ubiquity  Random Thoughts and Prime Numbers > It is instructive to note that many concepts crucial in this proof > were ... then afterwards the teacher would show us what is called the > Book Proof. ... This type of question is basically the genesis of the > field of computational complexity. The question of NP versus P is > whether or not anything that has a short ... [22] http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/interviews/j_cai_1.html > > THE GENESIS OF THE YOUNG COSIMA: HENRY HANDEL RICHARDSON'S > MOST ...result is a book almost devoid of imaginative and descriptive > writing. Its matter is ..... During the proof stage she said: "... I > wish Oh God I'd .... See letter to Nettie Palmer dated 6 May 1939, N. > P., p. 201. 9. 24 November 1929. ...[23] http://www.informaworld.com/index/795114923.pdf > > Book Review Book Review. Andy Clark*. University of Edinburgh. Genesis > Machines: The New Science of Biocomputing. ... (p. 112). The problem > is interesting in that it belongs to the class of problems that are > said to be NPcomplete?that is, to involve search spaces that grow > very .... As a proof of principle, one researcher ... [24] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/artl.2009.15.2.15206 > > Genesis BibliographyMatthews File > Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 117. ...... _____, > "Presenting Genesis 1, Constructively and Deconstructively," Proof 21 > (2001), 122. .... Lemche, N.P., "The Chronology in the Story of the > Flood," JSOT 18 (1980), ... [25] http://courses.missouristate.edu/VictorMatthews/bib/GENA.html  144k > ................In.................[3].......Sealed¤¤¤?%[ > [][+][I][N][«][}>}][R][I][E][M][A][N][N]  From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:30 AM To: MoeBlee <jazzmobe@hotmail.com>
MoeBlee wrote: > On Jun 10, 7:41 am, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> writes: > > > Alan Smaill wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 8, 5:23 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > > > >>>> From the lone axiom system {x=y} written in L(e,+) , one > > > >>>> *can't _validly_* apply rule of inferenece to prove Axy(x+e=0). > > > >>> But from the lone axiom "Axy x=y" in a langauge with '+' and '0' as, > > > >>> respectively a 2place function symbol and 0place function symbol, we > > > >>> may derive "Axy x+y=0", as I've shown you. Do you still contest this? > > > >> I remember your meta disproof involves something about > > > >> "proof in a language" or "natural deduction". _If_ they are the _same_ > > > >> proof system as FOL= (and I'm not saying they are) I don't think > > > >> you've translated your disproof into the familiar terminologies > > > >> of FOL= syntactical proof. If they're not, then you > > > >> know my position, I'm not interested in it, in this thread at this time. > > > > btw, I posted a proof in Shoenfield's own syntactical calculus > > > > for FOL= of the formula in question, from the single nonlogical axiom, > > > > on the assumption that the language contains + and 0 of the appropriate > > > > syntactic classes. > > > > I don't recall any comment from you on that proof. > > > > > Much as I'd like it's impossible for me to respond to all posts, so > > > I'm sorry if I miss any post, but it's not my desire to do so. > > > > > Anyway, did you mean the post on May 21st where you had the below? > > > > I did mean the proof below. > > > > But you have snipped a crucial part that post; > > it's important for the proof you cite to note that I had > > already stated, as I did in the post that you are replying > > to, that I make the *assumption* that the language contains + and 0. > > > > In this I simply follow Shoenfield, who says "The first part of a formal > > system is its language". And "To specify a language, we must first of > > all specify its symbols." So I take the language to have the > > nonlogical symbols +,0; and I made that assumption explicit. > > Note to Nam: This all crystal clear. What is most UNclear is what in > the world is blocking you from understanding this. > > MoeBlee
Hi = Moeblee,
Do you understand this?
Thank you!
Musatov
Dear "Hope",    Please do not cease contact. I apologize if  my repost of our correspondence betrayed  your trust or impacted your assessment of  my character. I stand by my actions and can only hope it was the right decision to make. I thought generally of the mentality of groups and group behavior in sociology and. psychology and specifically a TED (Technology, Education, and Design) video. had seen on the manifests of evil in anonymity and groups. [Link: http:// www.ted.com/talk/ philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html] Based on the textbooks I have read and this testimony of expert consulted in the  aforementioned video, the best chance at ending this manifest (or "digital holocost" if left unchecked) is to immediately tear down the walls between the decent bystanders and  the intervening. (You) Being one brave  enough to speak to the defense of one being  mistreated is such a rare occurence in front of large groups and you are brilliant combination of logic, decency, intelligence,  sensitivity, and kindness. My heart rejoices  and my faith in the fundamental goodness  of people has been reaffirmed in you. By  your actions you set a fine example and deserve praise, (minus the accusations,  insults and negative consequence I can only assume exist since you referred to me as"not your leper" but "their leper" and feeling the need to assert you were "not unclean" for touching me with "respect" in your words.   I must ask, why do you refer to me as a  "leper"? I do not understand. Based on the  situation you sparked in me a curiosity I can  only identify akin to "Sherlock Holmes" worthy in analysis. Indulge me this, and offer  me logic (if you must even in a hypothetical sensegiven the circumstanced I will take what I can get).  1)Leprocy does not exist (except for extremely rare cases, which I only assert based on an episode of "House") and...   2) You have never met me.  3) And I do not have leprocy.  Conclusion: I can only rationally assume this was an expression you made for some other situation or context you were not openly referring to.  Further analysis and consideration reveals:  A)In the context you directed your comment to "Pharisees" (your words in quotes).  B) Pharisees mostly refer to ancient Biblical text and groups.  Conclusioon:  Since I do not have leprocy and the disease is extremely rare and you have never met me and 'Pharisees' almost always in modern language refers to an ancient religious sect, I can only rationally assume you were not referring to literal "Pharisees" like you could not have been rationally referring to literal "leprocy".  So my questions for you:  1) What parallel dynamics (the physical persons and the relationship) between me personally and the community in context warrant the use of the term? How does it apply and why?  2) Who are the "real" counterparts to the "Pharisees"?  3) What physical conditions exist on USENET to make one a "leper"? (Since the physical conditions for real leprocy do not exist there has to be other physical conditions present which define a "leper" in this context. Please list them.  4) Since I am not physically "unclean" (in the rational ommission/ absence of leprocy, how could you possibly be "unclean" simply be "touching me with respect" (your words) on the Internet? Well since a) no physical leprocy is or can be rationally present and b)  it is impossible to physically catch an absent disease by electronically typing a kind message on behalf of one being mistreated, there is more going on here. The question is what conditions in the context of your comments and the physical reality define "clean" and "unclean"? In other words how could and why would one be considered "unclean" for speaking out in defense of one being ridiculed by electronic messages?   5) Define "clean" and "unclean" as physical conditions as they exist on USENET.  6) What about me (Martin Michael Musatov, Caucasian male, D.O.B. 9/23/1978, Unity Hospital, Fridley, MN, 55432) have I done to take on the characteristics, or what physical characteristics or conditions existed or do exist at the time of your comments to rationally fullfill the requirements of a "leper"?  7) What does the group (the USENET community  or a portion of them) gain by not only mistreating a "leper" (in this context) but inspiring a defender of a "leper" to assert they are different than me?  "THE TIPPING POINT": (To quote Malcolm Gladwell, an author I am fond of)  [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[******* $50,000 Question********What logical conditions exist to completely explain in full context the underlying anaolgy of the "leper" and the "pharisees"?*****************************  Answer here:  [Please answer $50,000 (?) above this comment]  ************************************************************************************** [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<twoedged s/word>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  You said it so you must have the answer to this question and it would be entirely irrational for you to not have the answer to this question since you are indeed the one who made it.   I do not see the literal reference or abstract comparison here, so I beg you kindly to  please explain all these puzzling words and  place them and your reference in clear  simple terms. Will you do this for me? Can you do this?   ::::::::::END STRICTLY LOGIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED::::::::::::::  ::::::::::BEGIN THEOLOGICAL ARGIUMNENT::::::::THE LAW:::::::::::: (Atheists,  please look away if you are easily annoyed by illogical Christians*)  *I am not saying anything just sparing  *some* Atheists the pain of reading my words. But, if you are an atheist and want to take straight math/logic game to the court in my defense, by all means, please....I revere mad math/ logic skills and appreciate a good Spocklike "shrewdness" (this is a compliment not a dig) ++++++++++++++++++++++ Charges against against "Pharisees": ++++++++++++++++++++++  If you are a God fearing Jew or gentile I  assert it is your duty to explain this situation  and testify to the truth. For the bible says, "It  is the Glory of God to conceal a matter." By  the word of The Lord, you take from the  glory of God by yourby your ommission and  if you do not explain, you are asserting you do not fear God. For the Word of The Lord does not say, "It is  the glory of a man to conceal a matter."  The reason this is clear to me is by shedding light and clarifying this matter concealed your actions not only comfort one being mistreated but also prevent further mistreatment of God fearing people (all of  them) by not taking from the Glory of God  by concealing this matter.  Scripture forward: Chronicles 11:  .......................................................23And he struck down an Egyptian who was seven and a half(d) feet tall. Although the Egyp tian had a spear like a weaver's rod in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyp tian's hand and killed him with his own spear. 24Such were the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoiada; he too was as famous as the three mighty men. 25He was held in greater honor than any of the Thirty, but he was not included among the Three. And David put him in charge of his bodyguard.   26The mighty men were:  Asahel the brother of Joab,  Elhanan son of Dodo from Bethle  hem,  27Shammoth the Haroite,  Helez the Pelonite,  28Ira son of Ikkesh from Tekoa,  Abiezer from Anathoth,  29Sibbecai the Hushathite,  Ilai the Ahohite,  30Maharai the Netophathite,  Heled son of Baanah the Netopha  thite,  31Ithai son of Ribai from Gibeah in  Benjamin,  Benaiah the Pirathonite,  32Hurai from ravines of Gaash,  Abiel the Arbathite,  33Azmaveth the Baharumite,  Eliahba the Shaalbonite,  34the sons of Hashem the Gizonite,  Jonathan son of Shagee the Hara  rite,  35Ahiam son of Sacar the Hararite,  Eliphal son of Ur,  36Hepher the Mekerathite,  Ahijah the Pelonite,  37Hezro the Carmelite,  Naari son of Ezbai,  38Joel the brother of Nathan,  Mibhar son of Hagri,  39Zelek the Ammonite,  Naharai the Berothite, the armor  bearer of Joab son of Zeruiah,  40Ira the Ithrite,  Gareb the Ithrite,  41Uriah the Hittite,  Zabad son of Ahlai,  42Adina son of Shiza the Reubenite,  who was chief if the Reubenites,  and the thirty with him,  43Hanan son of Maacah,  Joshaphat the Mithnite,  44Uzzia the Ashteratite,  Shama and Jeiel the sons of Ho  tham the Aroerite,  45Jedaiel son of Shimri,  his brother Joha the Tizite,  46Eliel the Mahavite,  Jeribai and Joshavaih the sons of  Elnaam,  Ithmah the Moabite,  47Eliel, Obed and Jaasiel the Mezo  baite.  <i>Warriors Join David</i>   ___ _ __  /  / _ \ These were the men  /_ /  /_ / \  who came to David    / / at Ziklag, while he    / / was ban    / /    / /    / /  _  __ / /_____  ______ ________   ished from the   presence of Saul   son of Kish   (they were among the   warriors who helped   him in battle; 2they   were armed with bows   and were able to shoot   or to sling stones right   handed or lefthanded;   they were kinsman of   Saul from the tribe of   Benjamin):     3Ahiezer their chief   and Joash the sons   of Shemaah the   Gibeathite; JezIiel   and Pelet the sons   Azmaveth; Bera   cah, Jehu the   Anathothite, 4and   Ish   maiah the   Gibeonite, a mighty   man among Thirty,   who was a leader of   the Thirty; Jeremiah,   Jahaziel, Joha   nan, Jozabad the   Gederathite,   5Eluzai,   Jerimoth, Bealiah,   Shephatiah the   Haruphite;   6Elkanah,   Isshiah, Azarel,   Joezer and   Jashobeam   the Korahites;   7and Joelah and   Zeba   diah the sons of   Jeroham from Gedor.         ______________________     a8 Or the Millo   b11 Possibly a variant   of JashonBaal  c11 or Thirty; some   Septuagint   manuscripts Three   (see also 2 Samuel   23:8)  *d23 Hebrew five cubits   (about 2.3 meters)* I "hope" you do not mind the adopted alias I have assigned you. I can only assume you are a female given your kindness and sensitivity, but in case you are a male I apologize if this offends you, and assert  merely, my appreciation for your aid.  A (final) afterthought:  I read you wrote, "God bless". Thank you. God has blessed you. We are blessed to have family.  May I share a prayer/poem I wrote some time ago? (Again, I feel compelled to note: I hope I do not drive you away with my persistence and driven will; I must say despite the intensity and odd form some of all of this takes from time to time, I am level headed and reasonable, but above all this I am kind.)  Untitled Prayer  God will you guide me? Lord will you lead me? Grace will you hide me, from those who decieve me? Love will you chide me, but please never leave me? God will you guide me? Lord will you lead me?  I will leave it on you to contact me from this point. (Unless of course something of great relevancy changes and I have something of tangible significance to share)  There is great truth out there and much remains unseen. Given the state of the world and the word of God in heaven I can only hope to do what is right with the gifts he has  given me. I feel this project is a direction in my life he planned for me. I do not know where it will lead or if I will succeed but there is a God in heaven, kind and truthful.  And he has shown me a way from the. Day I was born to find his purpose for me. As I have been known to say, "If you can ever imagine yourself at a place in your life where you could be completely content and happy, take peace in the knowledge when you arrive you could not have gotten there any other way."  Best Regards,  Martin Michael Musatov (¤¤¤)=(symbol)(mmm)  Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Original Message From: "Martin Musatov" <marty.musatov@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:21:37 To: Hope Clinic<hope9900@verizon.net> Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2  0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT
Dear "Hope",
Seriously, your time to write me has meant a great deal to me. Strangers is fine, but I need not a name to recognize a kinship or friendship or kindness.
While I appreciate your fierce sentiment in my defense, I believe people are basically good and only hope the ones who acted such a way only did so because I was misunderstood. You do not need to speak harshly of them on my account. I forgive them and wish them no ill will. Truth is what I seek.
Bertrand Russell said some brilliant things, one of them being, "Without God, life has no meaning." This floored me coming from an atheist.
I am religious and I take the value of your words to heart. May I ask what if anything prompted you in this reference? Am I not still in my soul? I assure I am.
This last section in your thread:
"be still Musatov, find the mathematics in the whistling wind , happiness in the garden, and watch the loon for hours , and be still and greater wisdom will come to you"
It puzzles me. I have seen so many statements like this at the end of threads and they seem to follow intense debates by more "senior" level posters. Can you tell me what purposes they serve?
Keep in touch, (I hope)
Martin Musatov Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Original Message From: "Hope Clinic" <hope9900@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:02:42 To: <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2  0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT
You have my respect and wishes and sincerely so. I will prefer to remain annonymous even though you choose other wise purely because I am very independant and I do not have any regular allegiences but my family. I just want to see this current project through with a web site and then I am done, I have lots of other hobbies. I am very honest , I do not keep any single contact with no body, that is the way I live, life is less complex that way. Simplicity is genius, a quote from an English mathematician Bertrand Russel.. You may have good ideas Musatov , and you seem to be decent, but as the Bible states , be "still in the soul". If you succeed in your ventures let me know, otherwise we should stay as strangers, nothing personal , I am that way. If I succeed I will contact you, but those other bastards at the Forum, I gave them their due, be still Musatov, find the mathematics in the whistling wind , happiness in the garden, and watch the loon for hours , and be still and greater wisdom will come to you
Be still in the soul Musatov, be still, God bless you . Find success!
hope 9900
 Original Message  From: "Martin Musatov" <marty.musatov@gmail.com> To: "Hope Clinic" <hope9900@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:57 PM Subject: Re: 2 Pi^2  0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT
> Thank you for your kindness. May I ask your name? (If not, I respect your > anonymity) > > Basically, I have an idea to leverage large sets of data to help people. > >  From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:31 AM To: marty.musatov@gmail.com

