Re: Selective Incompatbility in sets

[William Elliot]

> " I think ZFC is unfounded because the distinction between class and set is
> unfounded unless the distinction between sets is founded.

ZFC doesn't distinguish between sets and classes.

> The distinction between sets may be proved using a realtion R defined as
> following :
>
> Let x, y be sets : R(x,y) : x, y are distinct sets.

Would you explain your confusing, double colan punctuation?

In ZFC, a and b are distinct sets is alreadly defined as
not for all x, (x in a iff x in b).

> " I think the paper may seem trivial, I have the definition of a trivial
> class.

Indeed, it joins all those other papers of trivial class.

> T is a trivial class, T is formed by the union of at least two classes and
> the function is Comparability, which may yeald comparable or incomparable.

[H Boutamani]

Regrding the confusing ponctuation it is just a typo.

[William Elliot]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, H Boutamani wrote:

> Regrding the confusing ponctuation it is just a typo.
>

Wake up! Repost the question with the correction.

[H Boutamani]

What I understand is that I may have to reformulate the P vs NP problem.

But I do not think it to be necessary.

[Simon Roberts]

On Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 11:31:48 AM UTC-5, H Boutamani wrote:
> What I understand is that I may have to reformulate the P vs NP problem.
>
> But I do not think it to be necessary.

H Boutamani,

What happened to your posts? I didn't copy the link. I would be interested in trying to decipher (understand). You never know, you may have done something very significant despite "obvious" mistakes. Please re-post link. I will print out and try to read and understand without knit picking. The fact that you have had only one (perhaps insignificant) reply is optimistic for you. If there was a fatal flaw people would be all over it, like flies on shit, especially here.

Simon C. Roberts
<rete...@gmail.com>

[Simon Roberts]

Found it. Couldn't earlier, don't know why. Please ignore most of above.

[quasi]

Simon Roberts wrote:
>H Boutamani wrote:
>>
>>What I understand is that I may have to reformulate the
>>P vs NP problem.
>>
>>But I do not think it to be necessary.

What H. Boutamani _should_ understand is that he has no clue
as to what the P vs NP problem actually is.

>What happened to your posts? I didn't copy the link. I would
>be interested in trying to decipher (understand).

Which would be a complete waste of time.

>You never know, you may have done something very significant
>despite "obvious" mistakes. Please re-post link. I will print
>out and try to read and understand without knit picking.

You mean "nit picking".

>The fact that you have had only one (perhaps insignificant)
>reply is optimistic for you. If there was a fatal flaw people

>would be all over it, like flies on ...., especially here.

No -- the lack of replies is because his argument is total
gibberish.

quasi

[Simon Roberts]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:
> Simon Roberts wrote:
> >H Boutamani wrote:
> >>
> >>What I understand is that I may have to reformulate the
> >>P vs NP problem.
> >>
> >>But I do not think it to be necessary.
>
> What H. Boutamani _should_ understand is that he has no clue
> as to what the P vs NP problem actually is.

Neither do I, I did, however, follow his argument to that particular juncture.

>
> >What happened to your posts? I didn't copy the link. I would
> >be interested in trying to decipher (understand).
>
> Which would be a complete waste of time.

I'll realise that when I understand the P vs NP problem.

>
> >You never know, you may have done something very significant
> >despite "obvious" mistakes. Please re-post link. I will print
> >out and try to read and understand without knit picking.
>
> You mean "nit picking".

YEs. You do have a sense of humour, after all.

>
> >The fact that you have had only one (perhaps insignificant)
> >reply is optimistic for you. If there was a fatal flaw people
> >would be all over it, like flies on ...., especially here.
>
> No -- the lack of replies is because his argument is total
> gibberish.

Well, that's unusual. You must have wasted your time, as well, since you know it's complete gibberish.
>
> quasi

Simon

[Simon Roberts]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:34:02 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:

From my limited knowledge, if computers could be fast enough, they can solve any computation problem that can be coded. Isn't the problem the limitation of processor speed (which we have already reached).

By the way, what's up with quantum computing? Seems like BS to me. What would be any advantage of a mixed state (both 0 and 1 and neither 0 or 1). It would have to settle on one or the other eventually.

[quasi]

It only took a glance.

He's a complete crank.

quasi

[Simon Roberts]

Ok, I trust what you are saying. I think he put much effort into it, however. Much weight on it. Pity.

[quasi]

Simon Roberts wrote:
>
>From my limited knowledge, if computers could be fast enough,
>they can solve any computation problem that can be coded.

In principle, yes.

In reality, no.

>Isn't the problem the limitation of processor speed (which we
>have already reached).

If an optimally efficient algorithm for a given problem is such
that an input of size n requires 2^n steps to complete, then no
amount of computers, now or in the future will ever be able to
solve a problem with n = 10000.

quasi

[Simon Roberts]

Thanks quasi,

Simon

[H Boutamani]

What may be really confusing to quasi is looking for an algorithm that he may believe he can not find.


Qasi seems to know about computing then he may need to realise what a statement just is and what it just is not.

About the lack of replies, I find it to be wonderful.

[quasi]

H Boutamani wrote:
>
>About the lack of replies, I find it to be wonderful.

No one has any idea what you're talking about. Nor do you.

Besides your poor command of English, your incomprehensible
definitions and notation, your total lack of understanding of
what constitutes a proof, one of your "conclusions" is the
blatantly false claim that "P is not a subset of NP".

quasi

[H Boutamani]

Qasi speaking of subsets of NP you remind me of the problem of counting them.


I don't have to answer anymore of your words.

[quasi]

H Boutamani wrote:
>
>Qasi speaking of subsets of NP you remind me of the problem
>of counting them.

You're talking nonsense.

It's obvious that you don't know the definitions of P and NP.

>I don't have to answer anymore of your words.

I agree there's not much point.

We don't speak the same language (and I'm not talking about
English).

quasi

[Simon Roberts]

On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:

I have followed your proof, but am unclear how a|b relates to P vs NP. Not sure what the expression a|b means? Is it a divides b. The good thing about your proof is it can mean just about anything. Some of your Theorems are actually definitions. They are to me anyway.

<rete...@gmail.com>

Don't hesitate to write.'

Simon Christopher Roberts

[Simon Roberts]

Your command of English has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

[Simon Roberts]

I don't mean to be abusive quasi. You look at an ugly rock and decide it is worthless. You are biased to the point that you might not see it is fact a diamond that can be cut an polished. I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total gibberish. The thing is you, have so much knowledge you should be able to see a rock and right away know what it actually or potentially may be but you chuck it instead due to its lack of luster. You have in fact done this to me. This is why I fight you. (precision isn't always the point)

[Simon Roberts]

Albert Einstein:
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." Not necessarily a comparison just an example. I do not accept Einstein's STR no matter how beautiful, thorough, CREATIVE, genius and seemingly consistent.

[quasi]

Simon Roberts wrote:
>
>I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total >gibberish.

Sorry, but it really _is_.

Even with your limited knowledge of formal math, you should
be able to recognize an argument that is not even remotely
in the _form_ of a proof.

But by all means, carry on with your attempts to decode it.

Let us know when you understand the content of page 2.

quasi

[Simon Roberts]

And no, I'm not anti-Semitic. The Jews are going to save this world from an unavoidable disaster or else they will be the one's to survive it. They are generally speaking "the chosen people". Lot of dirty birds out there however. I was one, my dad was certainly one, and my wife's family will always be, I suspect.

[H Boutamani]

> Your command of English has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

There is some humour.

[Simon Roberts]

I'm torn, will read it again, and try not to let my hopefulness bias my opinion. I did follow it 'till page eight. I still can't see the gibberishness in it no matter what its form. It's novel. I have an affinity toward novelty.

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:26:47 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:
>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total >gibberish.
>>
>> Sorry, but it really _is_.
>>
>> Even with your limited knowledge of formal math, you should
>> be able to recognize an argument that is not even remotely
>> in the _form_ of a proof.
>>
>> But by all means, carry on with your attempts to decode it.
>>
>> Let us know when you understand the content of page 2.
>>
>> quasi
>
> I'm torn, will read it again, and try not to let my hopefulness bias my opinion. I did follow it 'till page eight.

And did you decide what x|y means?

> I still can't see the gibberishness in it no matter what its form. It's novel. I have an affinity toward novelty.
>

--
Nam Nguyen: *As we speak*, MS and NN would understand what "blue" would
mean.
Martin Shobe: No I don't. You could mean the color, the feeling, or
given your past history, something entirely different.
Nam Nguyen: Go and get fucked.

sci.logic 24/10/2015

[Simon Roberts]

We should keep in mind this is sci.math and not the AMJ. As for WM I can almost see how rationals are countable. They are in the form p/q. What could be more countable (besides ordinals)? As for irrationals and transcendental they are certainly not countable. It's just that easy, formal proof or not. Purely intuitive. If I had the precision and knowledge I could prove it. This is what I'm trying to do in an unmotivated half assed way. I'm on the dole and 48 years old. Puts a damper on my decadent interests. I'm torn and institutionalized. I should go to a funny farm and live my life out in purely "useless" pursuits (that really have no value and have the tainted human element all over them). Then again I would like to make a lot of money from the decadent ignorant that pretend they have cash to burn. In the meantime it is a moral imperative that I find some cork to plug my hole. Without it I'm dead in the water and will have "bad company till the day I die". I find this hole very useful at times however. If I could control it like a switch then that would most ideal.

See how involvement in civil conflict
"starts me up"

[Simon Roberts]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:50:37 PM UTC-5, Justin Thyme wrote:
> Simon Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:26:47 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:
> >> Simon Roberts wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total >gibberish.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but it really _is_.
> >>
> >> Even with your limited knowledge of formal math, you should
> >> be able to recognize an argument that is not even remotely
> >> in the _form_ of a proof.
> >>
> >> But by all means, carry on with your attempts to decode it.
> >>
> >> Let us know when you understand the content of page 2.
> >>
> >> quasi
> >
> > I'm torn, will read it again, and try not to let my hopefulness bias my opinion. I did follow it 'till page eight.
>
> And did you decide what x|y means?

It's almost irrelevant till the man, H.B., introduces P vs NP. Which I don't understand. Right now P vs NP is BS from the layman's descriptions I have read. But I am cynical. I even think limits are completely empirical and have no business being evaluated in pure math. I know, WRONG! As for Cantor's first prove, pure beautiful genius. As for his second prove, very faulty fundamentally.

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:50:37 PM UTC-5, Justin Thyme wrote:
>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:26:47 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:
>>>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total >gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but it really _is_.
>>>>
>>>> Even with your limited knowledge of formal math, you should
>>>> be able to recognize an argument that is not even remotely
>>>> in the _form_ of a proof.
>>>>
>>>> But by all means, carry on with your attempts to decode it.
>>>>
>>>> Let us know when you understand the content of page 2.
>>>>
>>>> quasi
>>>
>>> I'm torn, will read it again, and try not to let my hopefulness bias my opinion. I did follow it 'till page eight.
>>
>> And did you decide what x|y means?
>
> It's almost irrelevant till the man, H.B., introduces P vs NP. Which I don't understand. Right now P vs NP is BS from the layman's descriptions I have read.

But you did "did follow it" (your words)?

[Simon Roberts]

I may have got first and second switched. Sometimes I think two is an odd number and one even. This is how messed up I am. Bitch, I blame the bitch.

I have a stack of dishes that "should" be washed. I grew up learning a work ethic. 'Nuf said.

[Simon Roberts]

Yes I most certainly did. Try not to argue with me. I you attempt you will look as if you missed the point. Stephen Hawking got it all wrong too. (how can that man accomplish anything, really). And I believe all the theory in physics based on relativity is wrong. And Wiles didn't prove anything. Those that say they understand his proof are pretentious.

[Justin Thyme]

> Yes I most certainly did. Try not to argue with me. I you attempt you
> will look as if you missed the point.

There is that danger.

[Simon Roberts]

Yes "Danger, Danger, Will Smith" As for quantum computing also bullshit. Unless they are looking at it from a physics point of view. It seems to be a tri-state machine that may run a little faster. We already have tri-state.


The end is near (don't ask me how close). It's utter sabotage. "This may be the first trumpet, might as well be the last. Many more will have to suffer many more will have to die, don't ask me why." Someone or something holds all the wealth, money, power, and all the pure truths. God, I hope they have good intentions; that they are at least utilitarian.

[Simon Roberts]

I AM CERTAINLY THE SUBJECT OF THE FOLLOWINGS RHCP lyrics:

It say go write your message on the pavement, but also says no need for any interfering. Maybe I should just stick to my thoughts, i dunno, not enough of a clue.

Can't stop addicted to the shindig
Cop top he says I'm gonna win big
Choose not a life of imitation
Distant cousin to the reservation
Defunkt the pistol that you pay for
This punk the feeling that you stay for
In time I want to be your best friend
East side love is living on the west end
Knock out but boy you better come to
Don't die you know the truth is some do
Go write your message on the pavement
Burn so bright I wonder what the wave meant
White heat is screaming in the jungle
Complete the motion if you stumble
Go ask the dust for any answers
Come back strong with 50 belly dancers

The world I love
The tears I drop
To be part of
The wave can't stop
Ever wonder if it's all for you
The world I love
The trains I hop
To be part of
The wave can't stop
Come and tell me when it's time to

Sweetheart is bleeding in the snow cone
So smart she's leading me to ozone
Music the great communicator
Use two sticks to make it in the nature
I'll get you into penetration
The gender of a generation
The birth of every other nation
Worth your weight the gold of meditation
This chapter's going to be a close one
Smoke rings I know your going to blow one
All on a spaceship persevering
Use my hands for everything but steering
Can't stop the spirits when they need you
Mop tops are happy when they feed you
J. Butterfly is in the treetop
Birds that blow the meaning into bebop

The world I love
The tears I drop
To be part of
The wave can't stop
Ever wonder if it's all for you
The world I love
The trains I hop
To be part of
The wave can't stop
Come and tell me when it's time to

Wait a minute I'm passing out
Win or lose just like you
Far more shocking
Than anything I ever knew
How about you
Ten more reasons
Why I need somebody new just like you
Far more shocking than anything I ever knew
Right on cue

Can't stop addicted to the shindig
Chop top he says I'm gonna win big
Choose not a life of imitation
Distant cousin to the reservation
Defunkt the pistol that you pay for
This punk the feeling that you stay for
In time I want to be your best friend
East side love is living on the west end
Knock out but boy you better come to
Don't die you know the truth is some do
Go write your message on the pavement
Burn so bright I wonder what the wave meant

Kick start the golden generator
Sweet talk but don't intimidate her
Can't stop the gods from engineering
Feel no need for any interfering
Your image in the dictionary
This life is more than ordinary
Can I get two maybe even three of these
Coming from space
To teach you of the pliedes
Can't stop the spirits when they need you
This life is more than just a read through



Read more: Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop Lyrics | MetroLyrics

[Ben Bacarisse]

Simon Roberts <rete...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 4:26:47 PM UTC-5, quasi wrote:
>> Simon Roberts wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm not saying what he has is a diamond but it is not total >gibberish.
>>
>> Sorry, but it really _is_.
>>
>> Even with your limited knowledge of formal math, you should
>> be able to recognize an argument that is not even remotely
>> in the _form_ of a proof.
>>
>> But by all means, carry on with your attempts to decode it.
>>
>> Let us know when you understand the content of page 2.
>>
>> quasi
>
> I'm torn, will read it again, and try not to let my hopefulness bias
> my opinion. I did follow it 'till page eight.

The document I saw had six pages (and the 6th had only one line one it).

> I still can't see the
> gibberishness in it no matter what its form.

It concludes that "P not subset NP" so somewhere in the four substantive
pages there is at least one serious error. Four pages (or 90 lines) is
not much. If you can't find the error in that small text, I suggest
it's because the text is unintelligible.

> It's novel. I have an
> affinity toward novelty.

Yes, a random sequence of words strung together will probably look
novel. But once you've seen a few, they all look the same.

The key to crank maths is to avoid, at all costs, being understood. If
the author ever defines the key word being used to defeat understanding
("compatibility" in this case) the game will be up. The author will use
every trick in the crank book to avoid making it clear.

--
Ben.

[Simon Roberts]

Yes. Danger. Please do not shoot the messenger. I'm compelled, perhaps coerced.
I would like to retire, please.

[Simon Roberts]

He basically defined compatibility. And further proved the implications of said word. He is certainly not trying to be tricky, he actually thinks he's got something. It is very clear to me, he is not trying to be unclear he is just not precise. You assume his intentions as if he is immoral, that's unfair.

And you can't possibly tell me after you have seen a few they all look the same. Look closer. It may be wrong but it isn't gibberish. I couldn't have followed it if it were. Unless you are telling me I'm delusional because I did follow it. As for the pages...

I am a crank, but I've come out with a few gems. Where is the encouragement. Almost non existent. Almost all disparagement like he is worthy of nothing but ridicule and false assumptions of his character. He is a person not electrons floating around inside your computer. Can you guide him. Tell him exactly what he did wrong. No you can't and your reason (false) is because you claim it's all nonsense. What's the matter you can't pick a apart nonsense?
>
> --
> Ben.

[Simon Roberts]

It's the same old story ... many of you hold intelligence and precision as a virtue. It isn't. Intuition is more virtuous than intelligence yet you hold that as a vice. He is not BAD, assholes. If you claim that he is you have nothing at all to base that on except your moral knowledge (of math)...most of which is contrived BS. I say this with my almost non-existent knowledge.

[Simon Roberts]

Another reason why I balk on studying math. It reminds me that I peruse it to prove my intelligence. I'm not cut out for that. Somebody already has all the real truths anyway...pointless. I am going to feed on the likes of mathematician who think classical music is intelligent and wish to hear it in very expensive hi-fidelity. You would all be deemed decadent if your University didn't promote you just sitting around on your ass being all smug and intelligent; virtuous.

[Simon Roberts]

Can you imagine how difficult it is to be a store clerk. Standing on your feet almost all day being sincerely helpful and kind while being paid a pittance. You would probably say that's her fault for not getting an education and not being intelligent enough to peruse "pure" math. She deserved 10x what you are getting paid. You supposedly have a gift and you get paid to much for it. She has a gift too; moral intelligence. Something you can't deal with. You make to many assumptions; stupid (basically). Without the likes of her you would be nothing.

[Rick Decker]

The fact is that the paper is junk: almost totally incomprehensible, and
the few parts that are readable are flat-out wrong.

Regards,

Rick

[Simon Roberts]

You are the mathematician, prove it. Or else I can just assume you are flat out wrong and until then you have no right to tell me otherwise. For mathematician you don't really back up your claims or use much logic. Just pure adulterated piss.

>
> Regards,
>
> Rick

Regards,

Simon

[Ben Bacarisse]

Simon Roberts <rete...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 6:18:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

<snip>

>> The key to crank maths is to avoid, at all costs, being understood. If
>> the author ever defines the key word being used to defeat understanding
>> ("compatibility" in this case) the game will be up. The author will use
>> every trick in the crank book to avoid making it clear.
>
> He basically defined compatibility. And further proved the
> implications of said word. He is certainly not trying to be tricky, he
> actually thinks he's got something. It is very clear to me, he is not
> trying to be unclear he is just not precise. You assume his intentions
> as if he is immoral, that's unfair.

What matters is that you understand it, so where is the error that lets
the author claim the ridiculous conclusion that P is not a subset of NP?

> [...] Can you guide him. Tell him exactly what he did wrong. No

> you can't and your reason (false) is because you claim it's all
> nonsense. What's the matter you can't pick a apart nonsense?

No I can't, but *you* can, because you do understand what he's written.
So explain to him (and me) where the error is. What mistake allows the
author to conclude that P is not a subset of NP? It's only 4 pages.
How hard can it be for you?

--
Ben.

[Nam Nguyen]

On 21/01/2016 3:41 PM, Justin Thyme wrote:
<snipped>

Idiotic trolling.

--
A poster (on professor Daniel Isaacson's paper):

But you ignored what he pointed (alluded) to as the non-transient
sense of his "unknown"! So your argument is incorrect, unsound.

Justin Thyme: Fuck what he alluded to!

sci.logic 19/08/2015
--
Justin Thyme (being an intellectual pervert):

did you get through school with anything more than the
teacher's gratitude for those few days when you didn't
wet yourself?

sci.logic 19/08/2015

[Nam Nguyen]

[Nam Nguyen]

[Robin Chapman]

On 21/01/2016 11:38 pm, Simon Roberts wrote:

> I am a crank, but I've come out with a few gems. Where is the
> encouragement. Almost non existent.

Almost?

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:

> He basically defined compatibility. And further proved the
> implications of said word. He is certainly not trying to be tricky,
> he actually thinks he's got something. It is very clear to me, he is

If the meaning of x|y is very clear to you please explain it to me.

> not trying to be unclear he is just not precise. You assume his
> intentions as if he is immoral, that's unfair.
>
> And you can't possibly tell me after you have seen a few they all
> look the same. Look closer. It may be wrong but it isn't gibberish. I
> couldn't have followed it

If you followed it please explain x|y to me.

> if it were. Unless you are telling me I'm
> delusional because I did follow it. As for the pages...

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:

> Another reason why I balk on studying math. It reminds me that I
> peruse it to prove my intelligence. I'm not cut out for that.
> Somebody already has all the real truths anyway...pointless.

There are many unsolved problems, some of them have very simple statements.

Does P = NP? I'm not asking you to settle the matter one way or the
other, just look up the definitions of P and NP, then ask yourself has
the OP addressed the matter at all?

[Simon Roberts]

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 6:18:31 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

I have EIGHT pages. Clicked on the link, printed it out, EIGHT PAGES. Perhaps a different version than yours. P vs NP introduced on page EIGHT. I don't know who I am responding to, but will attempt to go through it page by page and either logically support or refute. It may be minutia (that is pointless) but it is not gibberish.

[Simon Roberts]

Not hard at all, but until I do I can't really pass judgement on said paper. BTW I have eight pages.

[Simon Roberts]

I don't think you can appreciate the amount of time, effort, and thought, H.B. may have put into his paper. English is not even his language. And ALMOST every comment about it is cold and virtually unsupported. Pissy lot. You have no comprehension of how demoralizing this can be. And if you do, you may feel this is how the world should operate. I have as much empathy for HB as I am capable. The validity of his paper is not really my main issue. I will attempt to understand and explain it in my own words, which will probably be ineffective to you as well. You all can follow the pages, you all know you can.

[Justin Thyme]

Does that mean your seemingly positive judgements weren't really that?

> BTW I have eight pages.
>

[Simon Roberts]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:21:02 AM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:

As an Indian bloke in Toronto used to use as an explanation, "Fuck the English"

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:

> I don't think you can appreciate the amount of time, effort, and
> thought, H.B. may have put into his paper. English is not even his
> language.

I suggest that he writes a version in his mother tongue and passes it
around competent people of his own nationality to see if he gets a
better response

> And ALMOST every comment about it is cold and virtually
> unsupported. Pissy lot. You have no comprehension of how demoralizing
> this can be. And if you do, you may feel this is how the world should
> operate. I have as much empathy for HB as I am capable. The validity
> of his paper is not really my main issue.

He is discussing a problem of mathematics, validity should be his main
issue.

Suppose you played chess with someone who moved their knights along the
diagonal as if they were bishops. You protest that he is not following
the rules. A passer-by claims that following the rules is not really
his main issue. You may reasonably claim that it may not be his main
issue, but following the rules ought to be the main issue of the players.

> I will attempt to
> understand and explain it in my own words, which will probably be
> ineffective to you as well. You all can follow the pages, you all
> know you can.
>

[Simon Roberts]

And the reason why everybody wants to move to YOUR country is because you totally screwed up theirs. And yes they do come with a chip on their shoulders. Bit of payback as some countrymen fight them and expect them to assimilate to "ideals" and democracy (ha). But I am a hypocrite, I'm willing to be righteous although to do so is to spite myself. I'm bored. And try not to persuade me Obama is a Socialist, he is almost everything but. This is immediately evident from his bail-out. Not even Capitalism. Elitism.

[Ben Bacarisse]

Simon Roberts <rete...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:21:02 AM UTC-5, Simon Roberts wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:31:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> > Simon Roberts <rete...@gmail.com> writes:

<snip>

>> > > [...] Can you guide him. Tell him exactly what he did wrong. No
>> > > you can't and your reason (false) is because you claim it's all
>> > > nonsense. What's the matter you can't pick a apart nonsense?
>> >
>> > No I can't, but *you* can, because you do understand what he's written.
>> > So explain to him (and me) where the error is. What mistake allows the
>> > author to conclude that P is not a subset of NP? It's only 4 pages.
>> > How hard can it be for you?
>>

>> Not hard at all, but until I do I can't really pass judgement on
>> said paper. BTW I have eight pages.
>
> I don't think you can appreciate the amount of time, effort, and
> thought, H.B. may have put into his paper.

I hope, since you are the only person here who appears to know what he's
talking about, that you will do him the service for finding the error
that leads to the absurd conclusion that P is not a subset of NP. It
would be very sad if all that time, effort and thought were not
respected by the only person who "gets it".

I don't expect you to explain it no me, but please do let the list know
when you've found the error. How long do you think it will take? The
text is very short and it's mostly definitions so it should not be much
work to find the logical flaw.

Given the page difference (which might be, I suppose, down to using an
odd paper since in your printer) can you confirm that the paper you
claim to understand is:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7oAERFQN_A7TG9jZ2tHcFgxYlU/view?usp=docslist_api

which links to a six-page PDF called "Selective Incompatibility and an
approach of duality between the problem classes P and NP.pdf" which
identifies itself like this:

$ pdfinfo "Selective Incompatibility and an approach of duality between the problem classes P and NP.pdf"
Author: Haroun Boutamani
Creator: Microsoft® Office Word 2007
Producer: Microsoft® Office Word 2007
CreationDate: Fri Jan 1 21:33:18 2016
ModDate: Fri Jan 1 21:33:18 2016
Tagged: yes
UserProperties: no
Suspects: no
Form: none
JavaScript: no
Pages: 6
Encrypted: no
Page size: 595.32 x 841.92 pts (A4)
Page rot: 0
File size: 316976 bytes
Optimized: no
PDF version: 1.5
$ md5sum "Selective Incompatibility and an approach of duality between the problem classes P and NP.pdf"
ef296b7422715d5043e8ecdb0f02080f Selective Incompatibility and an approach of duality between the problem classes P and NP.pdf

> [...] You all can follow the pages, you all know you can.

No, I can't even get past page 2 because I don't see a definition of the
the key concept. Anyway, my failure to grasp is it irrelevant. You do
understand that definition, and so *you* can find the error for the
author. He should be most grateful, since no one else can even start to
help find it.

--
Ben.

[Justin Thyme]

Simon Roberts wrote:

> As an Indian bloke in Toronto used to use as an explanation, "Fuck the English"

That reminds me of a joke. An Indian man often travelled between India
and Britain and he was used to changing his money at roughly the same
rate every time. Then one day he got far fewer pounds for his rupees
than he expected. He ask the clerk at the bureau de change why this was
but unfortunately the clerk had had a bad day and he just snapped
"fluctuations!". The Indian man snapped back "and fluct you Europeans
as well!"

[Simon Roberts]

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 5:50:37 AM UTC-5, Justin Thyme wrote:
> Simon Roberts wrote:
>
> > I don't think you can appreciate the amount of time, effort, and
> > thought, H.B. may have put into his paper. English is not even his
> > language.
>
> I suggest that he writes a version in his mother tongue and passes it
> around competent people of his own nationality to see if he gets a
> better response
>
> > And ALMOST every comment about it is cold and virtually
> > unsupported. Pissy lot. You have no comprehension of how demoralizing
> > this can be. And if you do, you may feel this is how the world should
> > operate. I have as much empathy for HB as I am capable. The validity
> > of his paper is not really my main issue.
>
> He is discussing a problem of mathematics, validity should be his main
> issue.
>
> Suppose you played chess with someone who moved their knights along the
> diagonal as if they were bishops. You protest that he is not following
> the rules. A passer-by claims that following the rules is not really
> his main issue. You may reasonably claim that it may not be his main
> issue, but following the rules ought to be the main issue of the players.

No one has told him what he is moving wrong and they do it all with a piss poor attitude. Get the fucking rule book out, do you want him to be able to play chess or do you feel content that he can't? Does he make you a better player because he doesn't know the rules. Does he make you justified in disparagement. IT'S A GAME, enjoy it, I can't, you are the lucky ones. "The men who hold high places must be the ones who start" -RUSH

[Simon Roberts]

I will, Ben, thanks. I will use the eight page version. I might learn something and be able to find (conclude) something significant, slim, but worth the try.

[Ben Bacarisse]

> I will, Ben, thanks. I will use the eight page version. I might learn
> something and be able to find (conclude) something significant, slim,
> but worth the try.

Can't you even say if we are talking about the same document? Are we?

I predict that you will not find the error. This is because the paper
I've seen has almost no logical deductions in it. It is a sequence of
incomplete definitions intermixed with assertions that do not derive
from any properties of those definitions. Mathematicians call that
gibberish.

--
Ben.

[Simon Roberts]

SNIP start: [B is the subset of pairs of element {x,y} of AxA such that x\|y. Fine.

No need to give it a name. It is what it is.

If B =/= {} then A_B = AxA (I assume) is called selective. Fine.

If B = {} (that is x|y for all elements of A) AxA is non selective. Fine.

Elementary compatabilities of x in A:

number of times (number of y's) x|y where y is every different element in A. Since there are n elements in A the max compatability of x in A is (n-1) fine.

incompatabilities of x in A

number of times (number of y's) x\|y where y in A is each and every element besides x in A.

It should be clear compatabilites(x) + incompatabilities(x) = n -1.

If you cannot follow this you are a twit no matter how poorly written.

Then there is totally incompatable; incompatability(x) = n - 1

and

Then there is totally compatable; compatability(x) = n -1

ie. if x|y means x divides y if x=1 then compatability of x would be n-1 and x would be totally compatable. get it.

PAGE 3.

Defintion #. and 4. are unecessary. The set of elements of B is invalid and the the valid set of element of A are those that can "divide another element" x in A y in A x|y a valid set contains all the elements x in this case. Fine.

THE MAX NUMBER OF TOTAL iNCOMPATABILITES; "PAIRS" SUCH THAT X\|Y IS n(n-1)/2. fine. the minimum is 0. fine. We will not try to confuse these pairs with a valid set and an invalid set of elements. Or will we.

I will assume order(B) is the number of pairs in B. Fine.

clearly,

0<=number of distinct pairs of B<=n(n-1)/2. fine

Now, oh boy, the number of valid subsets of A.

A has n elements the null set is a subset. Valid, meaning x in subset means x|y for some y in A. HB you said it is possible to have a set (x in A) where x\|y for all x and y. Consider a set of odd primes.

n+1<= number of valid subsets of A <=2^n

would you, HB, agree that 0 could be the number of valid subsets of A. That is B = AxA?

I think it should be:

0 <= number of valid subsets of A <= n(n-1)/2

unless you would consider the null set to be a subset:

1 <= number of valid subsets of A <= n(n-1)/2.

Forget this.

Next Page:

Theorem 1.

Fine.

Theorem 2.

basically a definition of a distinguishable set.

What is stated is that, AxA contains either

1. an element x s.t. x|y for every y
2. an element x s.t. x\|y for every y

then AxA = A_B is distiguishable. fine, and right now I say so what?

but how can you say order(A) is n? unless Order of A is simply the number of elements of A? That's a given.

Theorem 3.

the opposite of distinguishable is indistinguishable. fine.

Theorem 4.

If A_b and C_D are distiguishable then they are comparable. (another defintion I think)

you have completely lost me or it's compltely obvious.

let's see.

Theorem 5.

A subset of C
.

A is selective then C is selective. fine.]ship finish

Theorem 6.

What if A= C or A is a subset of C you could still have a element of A and an element of C that are both totally incompatable. Are you saying they must be different elements, and if so this assumption (false) would lead to a false conclusion that A=/=C, A is not a subset of C, and C is not a subset of A. HB, what if both incompatable elements of A and C were identical?

Why should it be that there is at least one element of A that does not belong to C?

I think you are a bit nutty. All previous work to theorem 6 is irrelevant and theorem 6 is wrong. Sorry, HB.


Simon Roberts (i learned nothing)

[Simon Roberts]

OK, you win. I read it. I concur. Thanks Ben.

Simon

[Simon Roberts]

I met a devil woman
She took my heart away
She said, I've had it comin' to me
But I wanted it that way
I think that any love is good lovin'
So I took what I could get, mmh
Oooh, oooh she looked at me with big brown eyes

And said,
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet
Here's something that you never gonna forget
B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet

Nothin' yet, you ain't been around
That's what they told me

And now I'm feelin' better
'Cause I found out for sure
She took me to her doctor
And he told me of a cure
He said that any love is good love
So I took what I could get
Yes, I took what I could get
And then she looked at me with them big brown eyes

And said,
You ain't seen nothin' yet
B-b-b-baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something your never gonna forget, baby
You know, you know, you know you just ain't seen nothin' yet

You need educatin'
You got to got to school

Any love is good lovin'
So I took what I could get
Yes, I took what I could get
And then, and then, and then
She looked at me with them big brown eyes

And said,
You ain't seen nothin' yet
Baby, you just ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet
Here's something, here's something
Here's something that your never gonna forget, baby
Baby, baby, baby you ain't seen n-n-nothin' yet
You ain't been around
You ain't seen nothin' yet
That's what she told me
She said, I needed educatin', go to school
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
I know I ain't seen nothin' yet
Got something for you right now
Feels good, alright, how do you do that?
But I ain't seen nothin' yet
I deserve it one of these days
Woohoo, but I ain't seen nothin' yet
Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeahyeah
I ain't seen nothin' yet
I'll wait, I'll wait, I'll wait
If you want to show me what I ain't seen, where I ain't been
Lalalalalala

[Nam Nguyen]

[Nam Nguyen]

[haroun.b...@gmail.com]

Here is the lastest version of the paper of eight pages.

https://­drive.google.com/­file/d/­0B2iY_1VArjmYTUttR1h5­WTRIWDg/­view?usp=drivesdk