Musatov "null zero rrror!" setsdimensional time block, to revolutionize mathematics
Musatov
> Nam Nguyen wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > Nam Nguyen wrote:
> > >> herbzet wrote:
>
> > >>> I am insufficiently interested in FOL= to know whether it can
> > >>> also be treated as an axiomless system.
>
> > >> That's not true:
>
> > > It is true: I'm not that interested. I've made no other claim.
>
> > Sorry; my bad then: I misjudged the word "insufficiently".
>
> Well, allright then.
>
> --
> hz
hz,
Here is what they do not understand. It is not about a name, who says
it or even what it means. It is about technology being dwarfed by our
own imaginations and lack of abstract thinking.
"Imagination is more important than intelligence."
Pi value of 3.14 redefined as3+ .14 correction for Null zero
error ...Jun 18, 2009 ... ONE UNIT OF TIME DIMENSION , DEFINED PROOF
P=NP (inverse 19 ...5] P. ... Martin Musatov Founder, MeAmI.org
(Search Engine, Searches Google <...> searching Google
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math.num-analysis/<...>/2001bc4078379893
Math Forum Discussions Jun 18, 2009 ... Re: Pi value of 3.14 redefined
as3+ .14 correction for Null zero error! Posted: Jun 18, 2009 11:00
PM ... ONE UNIT OF TIME DIMENSION , DEFINED PROOF P=NP (inverse 19 ...
5] P. Van Emde Boas, Another NP-complete ... Martin Musatov Founder,
MeAmI.org (Search Engine, Searches Google with no ads) ...
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6758972&tstart=0
Discussions - comp.theory | Google Groups 10 posts - 3 authors - Last
post: 2 days ago
PNP_Complete________________[snap]+Musatov Did you mean: model ... and
P=NP For example, one of his results is the famous proof, in 1969, .
<...>
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.theory?lnk=rgr
Cantor's argument is erroneous - sci.math | Google GroupsJun 10,
2009 ... Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant curve for that value
of n ... In breakdown, I posted a P=NP Genesis/ Riemann post
containing mention ...
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse.../9d6119d321608120?...
"Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics" -
sci ...There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
Standard view View as tree .... P=NP(9)2009 Martin Musatov All Rights
Reserved In Perpetuity ---------- ... Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is
constant curve for that value of n ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/.../f4a4f60cb565482d
Computational Complexity: Which Awards are well known? Why?Mar 19,
2009 ... My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to
win a million dollars ... My name is Martin Michael Musatov and these
are all the things I have been able to do ... Null and non-Null
distribution of simple correlation coefficient. ... Error
probabilities and their rates of convergence. ...
http://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/.../which-awards-are-well-known-why.html
If Cantor set is uncountable and measure 0, then (Cantor)^c
has ...There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
Standard view View as tree .... "Understanding Godel isn't about
following his formal proof. .... You see it is not my intent with this
writing to prove to you P=NP, I .... Ivashev-Musatov [40] who has
shown that there are null series (in the ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/.../da1b20809bc105bf
Cantor's argument is erroneous - sci.math | Google Groups 25 posts - 6
authors - Last post: 5 days ago
There was an error processing your request. Please try again. ....
Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant curve for that value of
n ..... Consider this thread an extension of my proof P=NP, and add to
it this ... Musatov wrote: > As to the book of Psalms and The Song of
Songs, there is a course to <...>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/.../95eea0b890d7f2af?...
2 Pi^2 - 0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT - sci.math | Google Groups 11
posts - 5 authors - Last post: Jun 12
There was an error processing your request. Please try again. <...>
Note: That this constant cannot be reduced to Null zero and n
(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant <.....> Musatov speaking on American
Entrepeneur and Innovator Thomas Edison <...> My goal, my dream, in
pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to win a <...>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse.../8e985497dafd8701?lnk...
TIME DIMENSION, STANDARDIZED DEFINITION - sci.math | Google Groups
There was an error processing your request. Please try again. <....>
Re: P=NP Proof Published at CERN On 9 mayo, 05:18, Martin Musatov.
<...> fundamental flawed mathematical notion of "null Zero " distorted
their understanding of the inverse <...>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse.../a8ec137d665b041a?hide...
Musatov
> On Jun 18, 11:00 pm, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nam Nguyen wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> > > > Nam Nguyen wrote:
> > > >> herbzet wrote:
>
> > > >>> I am insufficiently interested in FOL= to know whether it can
> > > >>> also be treated as an axiomless system.
>
> > > >> That's not true:
>
> > > > It is true: I'm not that interested. I've made no other claim.
>
> > > Sorry; my bad then: I misjudged the word "insufficiently".
>
> > Well, allright then.
>
> > --
> > hz
>
> hz,
>
> Here is what they do not understand. It is not about a name, who says
> it or even what it means. It is about technology being dwarfed by our
> own imaginations and lack of abstract thinking.
>
> "Imagination is more important than intelligence."
>
> Pi value of 3.14 redefined as3+ .14 correction for Null zero
> error ...Jun 18, 2009 ... ONE UNIT OF TIME DIMENSION , DEFINED PROOF
> P=NP (inverse 19 ...5] P. ... Martin Musatov Founder, MeAmI.org
>
> Math Forum Discussions Jun 18, 2009 ... Re: Pi value of 3.14 redefined
> as3+ .14 correction for Null zero error! Posted: Jun 18, 2009 11:00
> PM ... ONE UNIT OF TIME DIMENSION , DEFINED PROOF P=NP (inverse 19 ...
> 5] P. Van Emde Boas, Another NP-complete ... Martin Musatov Founder,
>
> Discussions - comp.theory | Google Groups 10 posts - 3 authors - Last
> post: 2 days ago
> PNP_Complete________________[snap]+Musatov Did you mean: model ... and
> P=NP For example, one of his results is the famous proof, in 1969, .
> <...>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.theory?lnk=rgr
>
> Cantor's argument is erroneous - sci.math | Google GroupsJun 10,
> 2009 ... Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant curve for that value
> of n ... In breakdown, I posted a P=NP Genesis/ Riemann post
>
> "Chris Menzel" helps me prove N=NP: "Inverse 19 Mathematics" -
> sci ...There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
> Standard view View as tree .... P=NP(9)2009 Martin Musatov All Rights
> Reserved In Perpetuity ---------- ... Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is
>
> Computational Complexity: Which Awards are well known? Why?Mar 19,
> 2009 ... My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to
> win a million dollars ... My name is Martin Michael Musatov and these
> are all the things I have been able to do ... Null and non-Null
> distribution of simple correlation coefficient. ... Error
>
> If Cantor set is uncountable and measure 0, then (Cantor)^c
> has ...There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
> Standard view View as tree .... "Understanding Godel isn't about
> following his formal proof. .... You see it is not my intent with this
> writing to prove to you P=NP, I .... Ivashev-Musatov [40] who has
>
> Cantor's argument is erroneous - sci.math | Google Groups 25 posts - 6
> authors - Last post: 5 days ago
> There was an error processing your request. Please try again. ....
> Null zero and n(2Pi^2-0.75) is constant curve for that value of
> n ..... Consider this thread an extension of my proof P=NP, and add to
> it this ... Musatov wrote: > As to the book of Psalms and The Song of
>
> 2 Pi^2 - 0.75 = INVERSE/EXVERSE CONSTANT - sci.math | Google Groups 11
> posts - 5 authors - Last post: Jun 12
> There was an error processing your request. Please try again. <...>
> Note: That this constant cannot be reduced to Null zero and n
> (2Pi^2-0.75) is constant <.....> Musatov speaking on American
> Entrepeneur and Innovator Thomas Edison <...> My goal, my dream, in
> pursuing a proof that P=NP was not to win a <...>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse.../8e985497dafd8701?lnk...
>
> TIME DIMENSION, STANDARDIZED DEFINITION - sci.math | Google Groups
> There was an error processing your request. Please try again. <....>
> Re: P=NP Proof Published at CERN On 9 mayo, 05:18, Martin Musatov.
> <...> fundamental flawed mathematical notion of "null Zero " distorted
>
> - Show quoted text -
Parsing caused subject error. Fixed. -MMM
MeAmI.org
MeAmI.org
MeAmI.org
Herbert Newman wrote:
> Am Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:37:53 -0700 (PDT) schrieb MoeBlee:
>
> > As to the inference rule of universal instantiation, you've not shown
> > anything incorrect about it, even as I explictly stated it.
> >
> > For the thousandth time [...], 'x+y' and '0' are terms of the language.
> > We then instantiate each of the quantified variables to those terms
> > in succession.
>
> On April 16 (!) I wrote in this thread (essentially):
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> First of all we have to consider the syntactical part of the system. With
> other words, we have to specify our /language/. To make a long story short:
>
> The /primitive symbols/ of our system:
>
> variables: x, y, z, x', y', z', ...
> arbitrary names: a, b, c, a', b', c', ...
> constants: 0.
> binary function symbols: + .
> :
>
> Definition of /terms/:
>
> (1) Any arbitrary name or constant is a term.
> (2) If t and s are terms, then (t + s) is a term.
> :
>
> etc. etc.
>
> _Now_ we can formulate the /rules of derivation/ of the system in a precise
> manner [...].
>
> Rule: A-Elim [universal instantiation]:
>
> AvPhi(v)
> --------
> Phi(t)
>
> where v is a variable and t a (i. e. any) _term_.
>
> This rule justifies the following step in a proof:
>
> :
> AxAy(x = y)
> Ay((a + b) = y) (by A-Elim)
> :
>
> Moreover it allows for the move:
>
> :
> Ay((a + b) = y)
> (a + b) = 0 (by A-Elim)
> :
>
> etc. etc.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Note that in this system (of natural deduction due to Gentzen/Lemmon) there
> are no free variables, but "abitrary names" ("parameters").
>
> Additional comment:
>
> In our system for _FOPL with identity_ we can prove the argument
>
> AxAy(x = y) |- AxAy((x + y) = 0).
>
> Proof:
>
> 1 (1) AxAy(x = y) A
> 1 (2) Ay((a + b) = y) 1 AE
> 1 (3) (a + b) = 0 2 AE
> 1 (4) Ay((a + y) = 0) 3 AI
> 1 (5) AxAy((x + y) = 0) 4 AI
>
> qed.
>
> If we now adopt the wff (!)
>
> AxAy(x = y)
>
> as an axiom of our first-order theory T we can prove
>
> |- AxAy((x + y) = 0)
> T
>
> (in this context).
>
> Proof:
>
> (1) AxAy(x = y) Axiom
> (2) Ay((a + b) = y) 1 AE
> (3) (a + b) = 0 2 AE
> (4) Ay((a + y) = 0) 3 AI
> (5) AxAy((x + y) = 0) 4 AI
>
> qed.
>
>
> Herb
Let us clarify our theorem:
Let the relationship between the complexity classes P and NP be in
theory a solved question in[...]. Given a set of integers, does some
nonempty subset of them sum to 0? [....] such that (x,y)\in R\; and
\left|y\right|\in\; O (\left|x\right|^{k}) [...]?
Are there algebraic versions of “P=NP?”
X is NP. R if for all x ∈ R n. , x ∈ X ⇔ ∃y ∈ M p(n). 〈x,y〉 ∈ Y with Y
∈ P [...] Twenty Questions is in NP. M. : guess y ∈ {0,1} n. , check x
[...].
Toward combinatorial proof of Toward combinatorial proof of P < NP [...
„] is a given DNF Φ valid ?“ •.
So far P ≠ NP appears more plausible [...] Semantics: refers to the
addition of reals x, y x y 0 x y 0 x. ℝ y≠0 a∨b ,a∧b [...]
However a Python module for computing Logistic Regression Requires
numpy [...]+NP.exp(beta[0]+beta[1]*x)) l = NP.sum(y*NP.log(p) + (1.-y)
*NP.log(1.-p)) # log-likliehood s = NP.array([NP.sum(y-p), NP.sum((y-p)
*x)]) # scoring function [...].
NP, namely L is c.e. iff there is a computable “checking relation” R
(x,y [...] a language over {0,1} that is in P, then there is a
polynomial-size family of [...]http://www.claymath.org/millennium/
P_vs_NP/Official_Problem_Description.pdf
CLAY MILLENIUM PROBLEM: P = NPQUADCONG is NP complete.
In P for c = •. See [MA78]. QUADEQN. Given integers a,b,c > 0, are
there integers x,y >. 0 such that ax. 2. + by = c? THEOREM 4.10. [...]
The P Complexity Class A problem Q is polynomial-time [...] in the NP
Complexity Class.
Let A be an alg. with 2 inputs and 0-1 outputs. [...] NP = {L. A. : A
(x,y) ∈ P and y is poly-size(x)}. More examples:
Finite-State Machines (1)So, we know that P Í NP but we don't know
whether or not P is a proper subset of NP. [...] Is SAT ε NP? Hint:
Consider w paired with x=0, y=1 and z=1. [...]
A definition of the P = NP-problem in categories:
M in which M P = NP or MS= (P NP) holds, because then the converse
result [...] no: X m Y + X, we get the object L o by factorization of
io: L- o. )X. 0 [...]
NP-Completeness:
A ∈ P iff P = NP. 13.3 NP lower bounds. Suppose that we can establish
an upper bound of [...] Σ(X\Y ).
To see that Partition is in NP, observe that Y is a [...] with ΣY = j,
and let T(i, j) = 0 otherwise the answer to the instance X of [...].
P=NP.
qed
•
.
MeAmI.org
> Nam Nguyen brought light with::
>
>
>
> > galathaea wrote:
>
> >>> what is your formal distinction
> >>> between axioms and language specification?
>
> >>> by formal distinction
> >>> i mean specific functional roles
> >>> in the machinery of derivation
> >>> which can be shown formally to differ between the two
>
> >> can anyone can answer this?
>
> >> it doesn't need to be mike here
>
> > Basically the role of language specification is to determine
> > the syntactical correctness of a particular kind of sequences
> > of symbols known as well-formed expression (aka formula). This
> > is evident from the way Shoenfield defined term, atomic formulas,
> > non-atomic formulas, or in general designators. In other words
> > the role of language specification is purely for *definition*
> > of well-form-ness of formulas. And that's all.
>
> > The role of axioms on the other hand, is to define the finite sequence
> > of formulas known as "proof". Hence axioms could also be said to play
> > part the role of determining the validity of a proofs (once the axioms
> > pass the well-form-ness criteria of course).
>
> > The 2 roles aren't the same however, and hence can't be interchanged.
>
> thank you for kind demonstration
>
> ^..^
>
> i will try to translate your words
> in as simple stages as i can
> so any misunderstandings may be readily pointed out
>
> given a Sentence
> some finite symbolic container like a string or colored graph
> you appear to have defined a functional processing stage:
>
> wellFormedCheck: Sentence --> Bool
>
> the data or state or configuration or definition of this function
> is the information used to perform this transformation
>
> you assign this data to the term "language specification"
>
> then
> as a separate stage of translation
> you state there is a mapping for sequences of Sentences
>
> validityCheck: Derivations --> Bool
>
> and that the data of this function is the "axiom specification"
>
> would this be a good way to symbolise the distinction
> or is this missing some important point?
>
> my next question would be
> (and again - i appreciate anyone's response)
> what is being output by the large-scale process?
>
> this is ultimately the question:
> what process is being described?
>
> process is inherently a vague word
> which could be synonymous with morphism and thus universally descriptive
> but let me try to rigorise this next question
>
> what architectural order do these functions of the process play?
>
> there are calls to wellFormedCheck and validityCheck
> so is it something like
>
> Bool theLogicFunction(Derivation someDerivation)
> {
> foreach(Sentence step in someDerivation)
> if (! wellFormedCheck(step))
> return false;
>
> if (! validityCheck(someDerivation))
> return false;
>
> return true;
>
> }
>
> or has this presumed too much?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
On Jun 19, 7:36 pm, galathaea <galath...@veawb.coop> wrote:
> Nam Nguyen brought light with::
>
>
>
> > galathaea wrote:
>
> >>> what is your formal distinction
> >>> between axioms and language specification?
>
> >>> by formal distinction
> >>> i mean specific functional roles
> >>> in the machinery of derivation
> >>> which can be shown formally to differ between the two
>
> >> can anyone can answer this?
>
> >> it doesn't need to be mike here
>
> > Basically the role of language specification is to determine
> > the syntactical correctness of a particular kind of sequences
> > of symbols known as well-formed expression (aka formula). This
> > is evident from the way Shoenfield defined term, atomic formulas,
> > non-atomic formulas, or in general designators. In other words
> > the role of language specification is purely for *definition*
> > of well-form-ness of formulas. And that's all.
>
> > The role of axioms on the other hand, is to define the finite sequence
> > of formulas known as "proof". Hence axioms could also be said to play
> > part the role of determining the validity of a proofs (once the axioms
> > pass the well-form-ness criteria of course).
>
> > The 2 roles aren't the same however, and hence can't be interchanged.
>
> thank you for kind demonstration
>
> ^..^
>
> i will try to translate your words
> in as simple stages as i can
> so any misunderstandings may be readily pointed out
>
> given a Sentence
> some finite symbolic container like a string or colored graph
> you appear to have defined a functional processing stage:
>
> wellFormedCheck: Sentence --> Bool
>
> the data or state or configuration or definition of this function
> is the information used to perform this transformation
>
> you assign this data to the term "language specification"
>
> then
> as a separate stage of translation
> you state there is a mapping for sequences of Sentences
>
> validityCheck: Derivations --> Bool
>
> and that the data of this function is the "axiom specification"
>
> would this be a good way to symbolise the distinction
> or is this missing some important point?
>
> my next question would be
> (and again - i appreciate anyone's response)
> what is being output by the large-scale process?
>
> this is ultimately the question:
> what process is being described?
>
> process is inherently a vague word
> which could be synonymous with morphism and thus universally descriptive
> but let me try to rigorise this next question
>
> what architectural order do these functions of the process play?
>
> there are calls to wellFormedCheck and validityCheck
> so is it something like
>
> Bool theLogicFunction(Derivation someDerivation)
> {
> foreach(Sentence step in someDerivation)
> if (! wellFormedCheck(step))
> return false;
>
> if (! validityCheck(someDerivation))
> return false;
>
> return true;
>
> }
>
> or has this presumed too much?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Sci.Math [P==NP] - sci.math | Google Groups
Local: Fri, Jun 19 2009 5:15 pm. Subject: Sci.Math [P==NP] .... M in
which M P = NP or MS= (P NP) holds, because then the converse result
[. ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/7e77e18e94795510
Source
[1]http://www.meami.org/?
cx=000961116824240632825%3A5n3yth9xwbo&cof=FORID%3A9%3B+NB
%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=p%3Dn+p+sci.math&sa=Search#990
Q.E.D.
[2]http://www.claymath.org/millennium/P_vs_NP/
--
Martin Musatov
Los Angeles, CA
> P=NP.
>
> qed
>
> •
>
> .
Musatov
>
> read more »
Musatov "null zero rrror!" setsdimensional time block, to ...
Discussions - comp.theory | Google Groups 10 posts - 3 authors - Last
post: 2 days ago PNP_Complete________________[snap]+Musatov Did you
mean: model ... ...
groups.google.com/group/comp.programming/.../836d0e6877347655
Musatov
>
> read more »
Okay folks here it is: