Posts:
791
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 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
|
|
