Date: Feb 5, 2013 6:24 AM Author: Subject: Re: Answer to Dik T. Winter On Friday, June 12, 2009 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, 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

> > >> first-order 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

> > non-logical 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 non-logical 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 non-logical symbols.

> >

> > >> And that is why the answer to your question concerning what is at

> > >> stake is trivial:

> > >>

> > >>> At stake is: if an axiom-set of a T has n non-logical 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 so-called "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 counter-intuitive 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 2-place 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^2-0.75) 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 non-logical 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 non-logical 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 P-proof 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 NP-completeness 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 ho-hum 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 ho-hum

> > observation ... The twin reality of hard proof-finding and easy proof-

> > checking is hardly an MTV-induced aberration. ... Indeed, the day the

> > Jurassic-1K 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 Church-Turing 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

> > 9-0041-1658-3. .... need for more rigorous proof-reading. Betsy

> > Halpern-Amaru ...

> [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/rev-blank.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/kent-34.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

> > 1-39 (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 P-proof

> > 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/0802/0802-005.ps

> >

> > The Creation According to the Midrash Rabbah

> > The proof-verse 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://ramin-honary.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 NP-complete?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 Bibliography--Matthews File

> > Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. ...... _____,

> > "Presenting Genesis 1, Constructively and Deconstructively," Proof 21

> > (2001), 1-22. .... 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 2-place function symbol and 0-place 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 non-logical 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

> > > non-logical 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 |sense--given 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]

> |

> **************************************************************************************

> [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|

> <<<<two-edged 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 Spock-like |"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 your|by 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 left-handed;

> | | 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 Jashon-Baal

> | |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