Re: Three bar equal sign?
NP=P
> In article <MPG.249bc33ff0a06610989...@news.cc.tut.fi>,
>
> Kaba <n...@here.com> wrote:
> > Ken Pledger wrote:
> > > ....
> > > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 4)(x - 4))
>
> > A slightly better example is given by:
>
> > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 2)(x - 2))
>
> > :)
>
> Much better. Thank you. :-(
>
> Ken Pledger.
Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
practical matters too). I propose the following:
'X' if 'X'
The idea is we create a thread. The first programming variable means
nothing. It is an instruction to the system script. It is an open and
close statement. It is <Hello, I am talking here><Execute everything I
said> order of logic.
'X' alone simply means "Open" or "I am talking" or "Listen up", it can
be followed by anything, or an infinite number of things.
And the idea of 'X' is arbitrary, as 'X' could be replaced by any
other logical symbol or character in any language and the idea still
stands. The operation still works.
Let me explain:
'X' when I say 'X'.
'X' is the master open 'command' key or 'dialogue'. It sets up a
system open script.
We then can open any operation simply by repeating it. The system is
not loyal to any language or frame. (or insert proprietary here)
If I want to open up a program Y, I simply say, "X, Y I want Y".
The system knows that if a variable is repeated it means to execute it
under the terms programmed. (or by pressing a key) Let me explain
further (further):
A formal illustration of how it would look in a system would be:
"X, Y, Y, X"
The first 'X' means open the root command, the first 'Y' means, I want
'Y', the second 'Y' means it is just 'Y' I seek and the 'X' closes to
command.
The platform solution requires complete symmetry in programming and
logic threads.
The programming implementation allows the setup of a system where
repetition of a variable in symmetry order allows command.
REAL WORLD EXAMPLE IN LOGIC:
In football the command "hut" means pitch me the ball back. The
Quarterback will communicate to his teammates, "On the 2nd hut throw
the ball." The first hut is to get set. Still 'hut' is the command to
throw the ball.
The real world variable and how it relates to the equivalency in
programming is explained as follows:
Instead of saying (1)"Listen up"....(2)"I want to open my word
processor"....
X 1 1 X
where (1)=the first command 1
and (2)=11
***********Note in binary*: the machine literally must count the two
ones and add them to get two.************)
User inputs:(1)"I want my word processor" (2)"I want my word
processor"
and this means to the machine "Open up the word processor"... only
when you read (1) "I want my word processor" (2) "I want my word
processor"
(forgive my terminology, I am simply being plain) but this inside/out
programming
illustrates perfectly my point.
and forgive my for being so bold but this logic clear, simple, and
plain, simply resolves P=NP
and overcomes the halting problem irrefutably
the solution to P=NP or P Versus NP, or N=NP or -1=1 or however you
want to frame
the problem is simply this statement: "Do not do anything until I say
it twice."
Advanced Symmetry application: the solution to the machine is the
overlooked symmetry. A complex command may look like: 'XYZZYX' which
would mean, "I want the YZ complex variable please"
Stephen Arthur Cook was right, the whole thing was simply due to lack
of ingenuity on behalf of our programmer.
(C)2009. Martin Musatov. All Rights Reserved in perpetuity*.
http://www.MeAmI.org "Search for the People"
*Applies to derviations of this work. Including software, programming,
and other profit generating means extracted from this work. Work may
be patent pending.
Charlie-Boo
On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
> way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
> if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
> practical matters too).
When I was a teenager I noticed that lots of Propositional Calculus
axioms are derivable from the fact that AND and OR (as well as ADD and
MUL) are what I call "Set Functions". You can apply them to any
finite set - so the order cannot matter. A&B = B&A , A&(B&C)=(A&B)&C
etc.
As a young adult I utilize that principle in my automated theorem-
proving software by representing A&B&C not as 2 applications of & but
as a set {A,B,C} with the & Set Function applied to it.
The result is that my programs generate theorems orders of magnitude
faster.
Yes, standard Logic is poorly designed, with shameful duplication of
principles between "different" branches of Mathematics e.g. Logic and
Set Theory both have DeMorgan rules etc. Researchers keep looking for
ways to prove the axioms, but overlook the fact that they have the
wrong model for that. It should be as Set Functions. Just like they
use Predicate Calculus for MetaMathematics (e.g.; ZFC axioms) when a
higher level of abstraction is much more efficient and yields many
more theorems in practice (finite world).
"Always work at the highest level of abstraction you can."
C-B
> I propose the following:
No need. I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
the problem nicely.
> be patent pending.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Charlie-Boo
> > In article <MPG.249bc33ff0a06610989...@news.cc.tut.fi>,
> Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> I am after a new theory, a new
> way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired
phrase "a new way" ("A New Kind of Science")? Yes, I agree
completely. You need better communication than repeating the phrase
"a new way" over and over again. You need to learn some basic axioms
and rules:
AB+AC+AD = A (B+C+D)
and the principle of substitution:
A="a new way of"
B = "programming"
C="measuring"
D="communicating"
Then,
"I am after a new theory, a new way of programming, a new way of
measuring, a new way of communicating."
=>
"I am after a new way, of programming, measuring, communicating."
Are you from India?
C-B
Musatov
I am from Los Angeles:
On Jun 11, 7:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <MPG.249bc33ff0a06610989...@news.cc.tut.fi>,
>
> > Kaba <n...@here.com> wrote:
> > > Ken Pledger wrote:
> > > > ....
> > > > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 4)(x - 4))
>
> > > A slightly better example is given by:
>
> > > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 2)(x - 2))
>
> > > :)
>
> > Much better. Thank you. :-(
>
> > Ken Pledger.
>
> Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
> way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
> if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
> practical matters too). I assert my proprietary findings:
> (C)=Copyright. 2009. Martin Musatov. All Rights Reserved in perpetuity*.
> http://www.MeAmI.org"Search for the People"
>
> *Applies to derviations of this work. Including software, programming,
> and other profit generating means extracted from this work. Work may
Musatov
Musatov
>
> - Show quoted text -
halting problem and/or proven P=NP, correct? (Yes if any or all of the
above apply, No, if none) = this will do to begin with ;)
Musatov
> halting problem and/or proven 6P=NP, correct? (Yes if any or all of the
> above apply, No, if none) = this will do to begin with ;)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
herbzet
Charlie-Boo wrote:
> As a young adult I utilize that principle in my automated theorem-
> proving software by representing A&B&C not as 2 applications of & but
> as a set {A,B,C} with the & Set Function applied to it.
In "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown, conjunction and disjunction
are likewise freed from having only binary scope. The commutative
and associative properties of these operators are implicit in his
system also.
You might like to have a look at his elegant presentation.
--
hz
Ed Prochak
[]
>
> So you agree we have indeed overcome the P Versus NP problem and/or
> halting problem and/or proven P=NP, correct? (Yes if any or all of the
> above apply, No, if none) = this will do to begin with ;)
Not until your "proof" is published in a refereed mathematical journal.
MeAmI.org
Ed Prochak wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:19 pm, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [P==NP]
> >
> > So you agree we have indeed overcome the P Versus NP problem and/or
> > halting problem and/or proven P=NP, correct? (Yes if any or all of the
> > above apply, No, if none) = this will do to begin with ;)
>
> Not until your "proof" is published in a refereed mathematical journal.
Well what if THIS happened to you:
Process Algebra Diary: EPTCS, a new open access proceedings series30
Apr 2009 ... abstracts published in EPTCS, or substantial revisions,
may later be ... Martin Musatov, a horror-film screenwriter, P=NP
crank, ... which preclude it from serious consideration toward having
resolved P-versus-NP. ...http://processalgebra.blogspot.com/2009/04/
eptcs-new-open-access-proceedings.html
Virgil
doubled equal sign.
E.g., 7 == 3 (mod 4).
--
Virgil
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> > Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> > I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
> > way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> > communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
> > if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
> > practical matters too).
>
> When I was a teenager I noticed that lots of Propositional Calculus
> axioms are derivable from the fact that AND and OR (as well as ADD and
> MUL) are what I call "Set Functions". You can apply them to any
> finite set - so the order cannot matter. A&B = B&A , A&(B&C)=(A&B)&C
> etc.
>
> As a young adult I utilize that principle in my automated theorem-
> proving software by representing A&B&C not as 2 applications of & but
> as a set {A,B,C} with the & Set Function applied to it.
>
> The result is that my programs generate theorems orders of magnitude
> faster.
Have you looked at lisp?
(and a b c)
> Yes, standard Logic is poorly designed, with shameful duplication of
> principles between "different" branches of Mathematics e.g. Logic and
> Set Theory both have DeMorgan rules etc. Researchers keep looking for
> ways to prove the axioms,
I'd be surprised if a reseacher was trying to prove an axiom...
> but overlook the fact that they have the
> wrong model for that.
comp.programming is so lucky to have *two* geniuses.
> It should be as Set Functions. Just like they
> use Predicate Calculus for MetaMathematics (e.g.; ZFC axioms) when a
> higher level of abstraction is much more efficient and yields many
> more theorems in practice (finite world).
>
> "Always work at the highest level of abstraction you can."
>
> C-B
>
> > I propose the following:
>
> No need. I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
> the problem nicely.
<snip>
--
Nick Keighley
MeAmI.org
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Jun 16, 4:07 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Nick Keighley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin Musatov wrote:
Dear Nick Keighley, Sci.Math, USENET, and others:
This as with any other equal measure should be measured in context to
suit the referenced material.
(copyright violated)
[1] Three bar equal sign? - sci.math | Google Groups
I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves > > the
problem nicely. > > > 'X' if 'X' > > > The idea is we create a
thread. ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/65f1bc8ef8ebc986
[2] 1. The Chapter 2: God Math (Logik, LOGOS, P=NP) << Robot Pirate
NinjaIt wasn't until years later that I realized what I thought was a
new and ..... For every set A in NP there is a polynomial p(n) such
that the problem of ... know how to solve membership in B. If A is
reducible to B via the function g(x), ... EZZ = Musatov Proof: The
Classes P and NP. We now shift gears slightly and ...
http://robotpirateninja.com/1-the-chapter-2-god-math-logik-logos-pnp/
[3] Three bar equal sign? - sci.math | Google Groups21 posts - 14
authors - Last post: yesterday
the problem is simply this statement: "Do not do anything until I say
it twice." Advanced Symmetry application: the ... I have implemented
it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem nicely. - Hide
quoted text -. - Show quoted text - .... Musatov>I see where you are
going and I fiercely ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/69595aaf4fb0eb79/21a77a451f484df5?lnk=raot
Three bar equal sign? - sci.logic | Google Groups11 posts - 3 authors
- Last post: 4 days ago
the problem is simply this statement: "Do not do anything until I say
it twice." Advanced Symmetry application: the solution to the ... (C)
2009. Martin Musatov. All Rights Reserved in perpetuity*. ... I have
implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem
nicely. - Hide quoted text - ...
http://groups.google.nu/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/87def8d2f1da640c/32a204cae8000f6f?lnk=raot
Three bar equal sign? - sci.math | Google Groups20 posts - 13 authors
- Last post: yesterday
I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem
nicely. > 'X' if 'X' > The idea is we create a thread. The first
programming variable means .... Musatov>I see where you are going and
I fiercely ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/69595aaf4fb0eb79/d742426974ba58a0?hide_quotes=no
Untitled to the friends of Kolmogorov--N.L. Dreier, A.A. Malinovskii,
S.A. Musatov,. V.A. Trapeznikov, and others, ...... ideas
(introduction of new concepts and interpretation of old ones, ... In
his papers Kolmogorov solved the fundamental problem of dynamics .....
Let μ be a set function defined on all Suslin sets Ε in R" ...
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0036-0279/43/6/A01/RMS_43_6_A01.pdf
by VM Tikhomirov - 1988 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
Three bar equal sign? - comp.programming | Google GroupsJun 12,
2009 ... I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
the problem nicely. > 'X' if 'X' > The idea is we create a thread. The
first programming variable means ... Martin Musatov. All Rights
Reserved in perpetuity*. ...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/msg/a69435941f7a64b7
Review of Ray Theory Applications in Modelling and Imaging of ...each
layer is a separate, smooth, and slowly varying function, .... These
arrivals are nicely unfolded into an oval curve in the ... intend to
solve the same problem, i.e., to simulate acoustic/elastic wave
propagation in the .... The diffractions were obtained using the
theory of Klem-Musatov (1994). The FD ...
www.springerlink.com/index/N32530312R3952Q2.pdf
by H Gjøystdal - 2002 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 2
versions
Discussions - comp.programming | Google GroupsMusatov>I see where you
are going and I fiercely agree. ... Ideas for a new application. I've
just received my Bachelor's in ... that will show up nicely on my CV
and improve my chances of getting admitted to the course. ... I'm
trying to solve a problem that looks like TSP (travelling salesman)
for a small scale. ...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming
Shtetl-Optimized >> Blog Archive >> Discuss: Should children have ...I
don't see denying the vote to children to be a bad idea at all, ....
But you're raising another problem in that the right to vote has
a ..... with spam bots (Musatov said the most interesting thing the
other day... ... Principles, ideals, and rights are things that we
create in order to solve practical problems. ...
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=389
The proof is in ZFC: {0+}
note: the text following "Martin Musatov" in this post is generated
from search link^[http://www.meami.org/?
cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Set
+Function+new+idea+solves%3E+the+problem+nicely.+Musatov#1304] and is
propietary to the full extent of the law and includes all software
applications, derivatives, and repurposing/publishing of the
information.
(c)2009 MeAmI.org "Search for the People"
Charlie-Boo
Is that near Bangalore?
C-B
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Charlie-Boo
I think you have been reading (or however you intake it) too much
published BS. People try to go beyond Turing with "Quantum Computing"
- HA! All they can think of is: "Turing proved you can't do it. The
way to go beyond that is to prove that you can." GAD!!!
The way to go beyond anything in math is to generalize it. You show
what the actual condition is under which the theorem applies and
consider variations - subsets of the premises. Then the original
theorem becomes a special case and much easier to understand. Even to
people like (I won't say who.)
C-B
(not yet)
Charlie-Boo
Yes, it's a teriffic, overlooked book. I am glad it has survived in
at least someone's intellect. I'll take a look.
C-B
>
> --
> hz
Charlie-Boo
wrote:
> On 12 June, 14:55, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> > > Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> > > I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
> > > way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> > > communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
> > > if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
> > > practical matters too).
>
> > When I was a teenager I noticed that lots of Propositional Calculus
> > axioms are derivable from the fact that AND and OR (as well as ADD and
> > MUL) are what I call "Set Functions". You can apply them to any
> > finite set - so the order cannot matter. A&B = B&A , A&(B&C)=(A&B)&C
> > etc.
>
> > As a young adult I utilize that principle in my automated theorem-
> > proving software by representing A&B&C not as 2 applications of & but
> > as a set {A,B,C} with the & Set Function applied to it.
>
> > The result is that my programs generate theorems orders of magnitude
> > faster.
>
> Have you looked at lisp?
>
> (and a b c)
Yes, but unfortunately the idiots who write the college texts
apparently have not!
C-B
> > Yes, standard Logic is poorly designed, with shameful duplication of
> > principles between "different" branches of Mathematics e.g. Logic and
> > Set Theory both have DeMorgan rules etc. Researchers keep looking for
> > ways to prove the axioms,
>
> I'd be surprised if a reseacher was trying to prove an axiom...
>
> > but overlook the fact that they have the
> > wrong model for that.
>
> comp.programming is so lucky to have *two* geniuses.
>
> > It should be as Set Functions. Just like they
> > use Predicate Calculus for MetaMathematics (e.g.; ZFC axioms) when a
> > higher level of abstraction is much more efficient and yields many
> > more theorems in practice (finite world).
>
> > "Always work at the highest level of abstraction you can."
>
> > C-B
>
> > > I propose the following:
>
> > No need. I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
> > the problem nicely.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Nick Keighley- Hide quoted text -
Charlie-Boo
1. Obviously people try to prove the axioms so they have something
more primitive (general.)
2. Do I need to dig out some papers on something so obvious and
fundamental?
> > but overlook the fact that they have the
> > wrong model for that.
>
> comp.programming is so lucky to have *two* geniuses.
>
> > It should be as Set Functions. Just like they
> > use Predicate Calculus for MetaMathematics (e.g.; ZFC axioms) when a
> > higher level of abstraction is much more efficient and yields many
> > more theorems in practice (finite world).
>
> > "Always work at the highest level of abstraction you can."
>
> > C-B
>
> > > I propose the following:
>
> > No need. I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
> > the problem nicely.
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Nick Keighley- Hide quoted text -
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 16, 7:07 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 12 June, 14:55, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Yes, standard Logic is poorly designed, with shameful duplication of
> > > principles between "different" branches of Mathematics e.g. Logic and
> > > Set Theory both have DeMorgan rules etc. Researchers keep looking for
> > > ways to prove the axioms,
>
> > I'd be surprised if a reseacher was trying to prove an axiom...
>
> 1. Obviously people try to prove the axioms so they have something
> more primitive (general.)
if you can prove it, it wasn't an axiom...
> 2. Do I need to dig out some papers on something so obvious and
> fundamental?
--
Nick Keighley
Chris Menzel
<shyma...@gmail.com> said:
>> ...
>> > When I was a teenager I noticed that lots of Propositional Calculus
>> > axioms are derivable from the fact that AND and OR (as well as ADD
>> > and MUL) are what I call "Set Functions". You can apply them to
>> > any finite set - so the order cannot matter. A&B = B&A ,
>> > A&(B&C)=(A&B)&C etc.
>>
>> > As a young adult I utilize that principle in my automated theorem-
>> > proving software by representing A&B&C not as 2 applications of & but
>> > as a set {A,B,C} with the & Set Function applied to it.
>>
>> > The result is that my programs generate theorems orders of magnitude
>> > faster.
Faster than what? Any other theorem prover? Have you won any
theorem-proving competitions? The next CADE ATP System Competition is
in Montreal in August. Are you planning to show off your system there?
> > Have you looked at lisp?
> >
> > (and a b c)
>
> Yes, but unfortunately the idiots who write the college texts
> apparently have not!
I think the point was that what you tout as your very own teenage
discovery has been a standard part of the syntax of languages designed
for knowledge representation and automated theorem proving since the
beginning. (And most every text on either subject uses LISP or an
equivalent language with generalized boolean operators.)
Charlie-Boo
wrote:
> On 21 June, 02:36, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 7:07 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 12 June, 14:55, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Yes, standard Logic is poorly designed, with shameful duplication of
> > > > principles between "different" branches of Mathematics e.g. Logic and
> > > > Set Theory both have DeMorgan rules etc. Researchers keep looking for
> > > > ways to prove the axioms,
>
> > > I'd be surprised if a reseacher was trying to prove an axiom...
>
> > 1. Obviously people try to prove the axioms so they have something
> > more primitive (general.)
>
> if you can prove it, it wasn't an axiom...
Surprise!
Now, is ANYTHING really an axiom? One problem is, they say "An axiom
is something accepted without proof" while in general it is really
anything that we KNOW already. We don't HAVE to prove it, but we may
- and likely can.
Why? Because there is a concept behind the symbols and strings of
symbols that is being represented. They can be anything, but that is
not to say they ARE "anything". The only thing they are (in practice
i.e. useful systems) is a representation of the results of some study.
In reality, the various branches of a study (e.g. Math or Computer
Science) feed into each other, where the theorems of one are the
axioms of another.
How many people have tried to prove Peano's axioms?
C-B
Charlie-Boo
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <MPG.249bc33ff0a06610989...@news.cc.tut.fi>,
>
> > Kaba <n...@here.com> wrote:
> > > Ken Pledger wrote:
> > > > ....
> > > > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 4)(x - 4))
>
> > > A slightly better example is given by:
>
> > > (upside-down A x)(x^2 - 4 = (x + 2)(x - 2))
>
> > > :)
>
> > Much better. Thank you. :-(
>
> > Ken Pledger.
>
> Dear USENET, Sci.Math, Creation, et al.,
> I will explain to you what I am after. I am after a new theory, a new
> way of programming, a new way of measuring, a new way of
> communicating. I am talking about an end to the old tired way of 'P',
> if 'P' then 'Q' innefficiency in programming and language (and
> practical matters too). I propose the following:
> 'X' if 'X'
I'll do you a favor and explain how it all works. I say favor because
this is very fundamental, very useful, and nobody really understands
it (withness the absence of any discussion of the process.) I am
talking about formalizing.
Formalizing is abstracting a set of "Intuitive Examples" - IEs - into
a small number of rules for generating them. The IEs can be:
1. Computer programs that a Program Synthesis system is supposed to
synthesize.
2. Theorems that a theorem-generator is supposed to generate.
3. Theorems that are to be represented. Proofs that are to be
represented. Any component can be focused on and maximized.
4. Techniques for optimizing a set of processes that can be done in
multiple ways (preparing envelopes for a mass mailing, organizing data
fields into records and files) with a measure of cost and benefit to
each.
Science is man's attempt to PREDICT and CONTROL the future state of
his surroundings. (It is science when he succeeds.) Formalizing
tells him which values to use when he controls something - what values
to set the settings to. This is why mathematics is the science that
can be done without the use of the 5 senses (the "Helen Keller"
science.)
Then our goal is to translate some set of IEs into an algorithm for
generating them - generate computer programs, theorems, procedures,
database designs.
So you have to start with the IEs!! Now, there are many things we can
say about the care and feeding of our IEs. (I nurtured a set of about
12 computer programs for 1 year and 9 months in order to axiomatize
Program Synthesis, the first branch of Computer Science to be
axiomatized. This consisted mostly of representing them using a
myriad of models until one showed the relationships among the IEs -
what they have in common and how they can be generated.)
You are starting with the formalism!
How can you judge a formalism without knowing the IEs first?
I'm sorry, but my students would laugh you off the stage. :)
C-B
> be patent pending.- Hide quoted text -
Nick Keighley
> On Jun 21, 3:03 pm, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>> > > On Jun 16, 7:07 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12 June, 14:55, Charlie-Boo <shymath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P" <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:51 pm, Ken Pledger <ken.pled...@mcs.vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
> > > > > Researchers keep looking for ways to prove the axioms,
>
> > > > I'd be surprised if a reseacher was trying to prove an axiom...
>
> > > 1. Obviously people try to prove the axioms so they have something
> > > more primitive (general.)
>
> > if you can prove it, it wasn't an axiom...
>
> Surprise!
I think we may be in agreement then...
> Now, is ANYTHING really an axiom?
yes
> One problem is, they say "An axiom
> is something accepted without proof" while in general it is really
> anything that we KNOW already.
define "KNOW". Do you just me "accept as true for this mathematical
framework"?
> We don't HAVE to prove it, but we may - and likely can.
bullshit. Take Euclids postulates (excluding the parallel one), how'd
you prove any of them?
> Why? Because there is a concept behind the symbols and strings of
> symbols that is being represented.
now into the hairier areas of mathematical philosophy
> They can be anything, but that is
> not to say they ARE "anything".
what is "they" in the above. And what does "ARE" mean?
Come to that, why is "anything" quoted?
> The only thing they are (in practice
> i.e. useful systems) is a representation of the results of some study.
too many pronouns for me. Are "they" axioms or systems?
> In reality, the various branches of a study (e.g. Math or Computer
> Science) feed into each other, where the theorems of one are the
> axioms of another.
not always. Sometimes you really are at the bottom.
> How many people have tried to prove Peano's axioms?
9
--
Nick Keighley
If cosmology reveals anything about God, it is that He has
an inordinate fondness for empty space and non-baryonic dark
matter.
Sverker Johansson (talk.origins)
MeAmI.org
MeAmI.org scribed:
judgment at this time? How do you "know" it is not simply the
foundation for a later proof? Can you rule out the possibility?
Can you answer all these questions? Prove it. I tell you the truth
nothing I write will be wasted. Not a single word will not be put to
good use.
--
mmm
scribio_vide
Three bar equal sign? Musatov marty.musa...@gmail.com sci math comp
theory comp programming sci logic On Jun 12, 12:19 pm, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: On .... (Yes if any or all of the
above apply, No, if none) = this will do to begin with ;)- Hide quoted
text - - Show quoted text - On Jun 11, 10:53 pm, "NP=P"
<marty.musa. ... Jun 12 by Musatov - 33 messages - 15 authors
"renowned screen-writer and performance artist" You guys crack me up!
Musatov marty.musa...@gmail.com sci math Musatov wrote: Joshua
Cranmer wrote: ... semblance of a proof structure instead of mumbling
garbage all the time. ... sci.math - Jul 20, 2009 by - 4 message - 3
author Mathematics is not truth. Truth is Mathematics. Since there is
in fact a 1930 paper, containing the proof ... Jul 21 by Musatov - 1
message - 1 author The Miracle Post msn.com> wrote: On Jul 21,
7:27 am, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: Musatov wrote: God
bless you always sing to God the Glory in the Highest. The Kingdom is
his. ... The fact remanins I did not write the below message at all
though it lists my correct email address as the author:
marty.musa...@gmail.com. ... Jul 21 by Musatov - 4 messages - 2
authors Answer to Dik T. Winter Math Forum Discussions On May 14,
12:07 pm, Martin Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: ...
forums ... write bijections between any infinite set S and S \F for
any ... From: Martin Michael Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> ..... D
A000045 nssGu,nyLi and T.Mansour,2-Binary trees:bijections ... Jul 1
by Musatov - 533 messages - 26 authors How do you see the unity of
all Physical Laws ? socratus isra...@yahoo.com sci math alt
religion alt writing sci physics On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul ... gmail.com> wrote: Musatov
wrote: socratus wrote: On Jul 9, 9:49 am, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jul 8, 10:52 pm, socratus
<isra...@yahoo.com> wrote:> How ... Jul 10 by socratus - 25 messages -
8 authors Musatov Prime Generalization Conjecture Musatov
marty.musa...@gmail.com sci math num-analysis sci math comp
programming sci logic comp theory On Jul 12, 11:07 pm, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: On ... irl.cri.replacethiswithnz>
wrote: In article <88f7a7fc-702c-47ac-8f3e-66088faf4487
@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, marty.musa...@gmail.com says. ... Jul
15 by Musatov - 41 messages - 13 authors "It's not 1969!" Musatov
marty.musa...@gmail.com sci physics sci physics relativity sci math
Musatov wrote: Don Stockbauer wrote: On Jul 13, 11:23 pm, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: Why do my Google alerts for Sci.Math
posts show up in my email dated 1969? Anyone else have this
experience? Google Groups Alert for: Musatov ... Jul 15 by Musatov -
20 messages - 12 authors Why do things have to age slower in time?
zookumar yelubandi zooku...@yahoo.ca cam misc sci math sci physics
misc writing screenplays rec org mensa uncleenglish wrote: On 16 July,
04:05, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: Musatov wrote:
uncleenglish wrote: On 16 July, 01:29, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: Musatov wrote: uncleenglish
wrote: ... Jul 16 by zookumar yelubandi - 25 messages - 8 authors
Sci.Math [P==NP] Musatov marty.musa...@gmail.com comp theory comp
programming sci logic sci math On Jul 15, 1:34 am, Musatov
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: On Jun 30, 4:50 pm, "meami.org"
<Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote: On Jun 19, 2:15 pm, "meami.org"
<Me...@vzw.blackberry.net> wrote: Sci.math wrote: (Inverse 19) Herbert
Newman ... Jul 15 by Musatov - 9 messages - 2 authors MMX-LT-
Einstein = discrepancy To understand this paradox, recall how
adamantly Christ refused to make compromises according to the Gospel
of John, the Jesus Christ born slightly more than 2000 ... is "the
<marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote: ......
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/special_relativity/Simultaneity%2C_time_.
... Jul 5 by MeAmI.org - 1 message - 1 author
e-coop-np proof
>
> [2] 1. The Chapter 2: God Math (Logik, LOGOS, P=NP) << Robot Pirate
> NinjaIt wasn't until years later that I realized what I thought was a
> new and ..... For every set A in NP there is a polynomial p(n) such
> that the problem of ... know how to solve membership in B. If A is
> reducible to B via the function g(x), ... EZZ = Musatov Proof: The
>
> [3] Three bar equal sign? - sci.math | Google Groups21 posts - 14
> authors - Last post: yesterday
> the problem is simply this statement: "Do not do anything until I say
> it twice." Advanced Symmetry application: the ... I have implemented
> it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem nicely. - Hide
> quoted text -. - Show quoted text - .... Musatov>I see where you are
>
> Three bar equal sign? - sci.logic | Google Groups11 posts - 3 authors
> - Last post: 4 days ago
> the problem is simply this statement: "Do not do anything until I say
> it twice." Advanced Symmetry application: the solution to the ... (C)
> 2009. Martin Musatov. All Rights Reserved in perpetuity*. ... I have
> implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem
>
> Three bar equal sign? - sci.math | Google Groups20 posts - 13 authors
> - Last post: yesterday
> I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves the problem
> nicely. > 'X' if 'X' > The idea is we create a thread. The first
> programming variable means .... Musatov>I see where you are going and
> I fiercely ...
>
> S.A. Musatov,. V.A. Trapeznikov, and others, ...... ideas
> (introduction of new concepts and interpretation of old ones, ... In
> his papers Kolmogorov solved the fundamental problem of dynamics .....
> by VM Tikhomirov - 1988 - Cited by 2 - Related articles
>
> Three bar equal sign? - comp.programming | Google GroupsJun 12,
> 2009 ... I have implemented it and the Set Function new idea solves
> the problem nicely. > 'X' if 'X' > The idea is we create a thread. The
> first programming variable means ... Martin Musatov. All Rights
>
> Review of Ray Theory Applications in Modelling and Imaging of ...each
> layer is a separate, smooth, and slowly varying function, .... These
> arrivals are nicely unfolded into an oval curve in the ... intend to
> solve the same problem, i.e., to simulate acoustic/elastic wave
> propagation in the .... The diffractions were obtained using the
> theory of Klem-Musatov (1994). The FD ...www.springerlink.com/index/N32530312R3952Q2.pdf
> by H Gjøystdal - 2002 - Cited by 3 - Related articles - All 2
> versions
>
> Discussions - comp.programming | Google GroupsMusatov>I see where you
> are going and I fiercely agree. ... Ideas for a new application. I've
> just received my Bachelor's in ... that will show up nicely on my CV
> and improve my chances of getting admitted to the course. ... I'm
> trying to solve a problem that looks like TSP (travelling salesman)
>
> Shtetl-Optimized >> Blog Archive >> Discuss: Should children have ...I
> don't see denying the vote to children to be a bad idea at all, ....
> But you're raising another problem in that the right to vote has
> a ..... with spam bots (Musatov said the most interesting thing the
> other day... ... Principles, ideals, and rights are things that we
>
> The proof is in ZFC: {0+}
>
> note: the text following "Martin Musatov" in this post is generated
> from search link^[http://www.meami.org/?
> cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=Set
> +Function+new+idea+solves%3E+the+problem+nicely.+Musatov#1304] and is
> propietary to the full extent of the law and includes all software
> applications, derivatives, and repurposing/publishing of the
> information.
>
> (c)2009 MeAmI.org "Search for the People"
Three bar equal sign? - comp.programming | Google GroupsThe proof is
in ZFC: {0+}. note: the text following "Martin Musatov" in this post