Posts:
821
Registered:
9/1/10


Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter
Posted:
Feb 5, 2013 6:24 AM


On Friday, June 12, 2009 10:10:03 AM UTC7, Martin Michael Musatov wrote: > 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. > > > > > me > From: Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> > Date: Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:31 AM > To: marty.musatov@gmail.com basically

