Re: Prove this

[My Father]

I never asked for your belief because your belief is not necessary.

[My Father]

if I had ever really dismissed you would have known
Nk
Kn

[Musatov]

Musatrov wrote:
David W. Cantrell wrote:
> rpg16 <roupam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Prove that for all positive integers m
> >
> > (1 + 1/3^(m-1) )^m < 4
>
> You might even want to prove a tighter result:
>
> (1 + 1/3^(m-1))^m <= 2 for positive integer m.
>
> Method:
> Let f(m) = (1 + 1/3^(m-1))^m.
> Note that f(1) = 2 and f(2) = 16/9.
> Then show that f(m + 1) < f(m) for m >= 2,
> which just takes a little algebra.
>
> David

You have a cool last name. Are you by chance an Alice in Chains fan?

Can we say the mappings for n = 0, n = 1, and n = f(m) will always be
of the forms shown?

Can we note that n = 3 contains the only non-degenerate cycle of
iterates?

Proposition 2: If m and (m-1)/2 are primes, then the number of
distinct primes confirms... 2 and 7 are indeed primitive exponents
(mod 23), and it's easy to show. Right?

Thanks,

Musatov

[MichaelW]

On Jul 16, 3:12 pm, Musatov <marty.musa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Musatrov wrote:
> David W. Cantrell wrote:

> Musatov- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here we go again. Your post is snippets of text from this page:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath148/kmath148.htm

This page ("Primitive Roots and Exponential Iterations") has nothing
to do with the problem that you posted, and indeed the parts you have
extracted make no sense in isolation.

I am sorry that you are currently unemployed and that you are no
longer involved in the Witchblade movie project but I do not think
that this kind of behaviour is an appropriate use of your time.

Regards, MichaelW.

[Primes?]

Musatov wrote:

It's okay. There will be others. Besides, I am working on something
useful and imaginative always.

Thanks for the reply. (Did you notice I posted the original thread,
too? -- according to Google)

[MichaelW]

> too? -- according to Google)- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I noticed you took a question from another poster (rpg16) and dumped
some irrelevant text from an article from "The American Mathematical
Monthly" (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2319931).

My point (which you avoided) is that you dump irrelevant text from
other maths sites and articles into various threads.

This is the equivalent of a poor student who, because he struggles
with the lessons disrupts the class with rude and disorderly
behaviour. All this achieves is to get in the way of those who
genuinely want to learn.

If this has not been your intention and if you truly value good
manners and civilised behaviour as much as you say you do then you
have an opportunity to amend your ways. Are you willing to take this
opportunity?

Regards, Michael W.

[Primes?]

What if the student is studying a process refining automation?

[MichaelW]

Then the student should stop yelling out random phrases in class and
start listening to the people with the talent and skill to teach him.

Regards, Michael W.

[Primes?]

I am conditionally.

I have decided to avoid all profanity in my posting and all insulting
or demeaning language.

I will take this opportunity, yes.

1. What is the deal with parsing/mathematics and language? I notice
words like "tooth" and "brane" are posted at particular times and
conditions in certain topics. The terms "tooth" and "brane" do not
seem to apply by any remote contextual application of the term
definitions. It almost appears as they are tools surrounding certain
words and blogs relating to mathematics and parsing. One in particular
being http://scottaaronson.com/blog. The language on the blog posts is
artificial almost as if forced into existence by contextual variables.

(Sorry to be so long winded but it seems I so rarely meet someone on
level engagement in the right context for these questions)

Pay particular attention to the post containing the below language:

The Blog of Scott Aaronson Quantum computers are not known to be
able .... What's nice about this particular machine is how imperfect
it is. ... Angels pushing a bejeweled reading head along a platinum
tape. ...
http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=387

Will you kindly shed some light?

--
Musatov

[MichaelW]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:47:48 -0700, Primes? wrote:

>
> I am conditionally.
>
> I have decided to avoid all profanity in my posting and all insulting or
> demeaning language.
>
> I will take this opportunity, yes.
>
> 1. What is the deal with parsing/mathematics and language? I notice
> words like "tooth" and "brane" are posted at particular times and
> conditions in certain topics. The terms "tooth" and "brane" do not seem
> to apply by any remote contextual application of the term definitions.
> It almost appears as they are tools surrounding certain words and blogs
> relating to mathematics and parsing. One in particular being
> http://scottaaronson.com/blog. The language on the blog posts is
> artificial almost as if forced into existence by contextual variables.
>
> (Sorry to be so long winded but it seems I so rarely meet someone on
> level engagement in the right context for these questions)
>
> Pay particular attention to the post containing the below language:
>
> The Blog of Scott Aaronson Quantum computers are not known to be able
> .... What's nice about this particular machine is how imperfect it is.
> ... Angels pushing a bejeweled reading head along a platinum tape. ...
> http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=387
>
> Will you kindly shed some light?

Okay, I have seen the "brane" posts. Whilst this is a term in string
theory I suspect the poster is deliberately misspelling "brain" to
indicate his low opinion of your intelligence. I suggest you ignore this
type of posting.

The post you refer is in full:
<quote>
What’s nice about this particular machine is how imperfect it is. There’s
a lot of jawing about how the universe is ‘really’ just a simulation
being run on a machine somewhere (usually assumed to be a Turing
machine), but one gets the sense from the proponents that it’s an
exceedingly well-constructed one, machined to micro-micro tolerances in
some ideal material. Angels pushing a bejeweled reading head along a
platinum tape. But there’s nothing to prevent the simulation, if such it
is, from being run on a Lego equivalent in some higher space. Maybe the
machine breaks from time to time, maybe it misreads the tape. Maybe the
whole thing is put away for eons, and the game is taken down from the top
of the bookcase to be played on rainy days when there’s nothing else to
do.

Shades of Egan and his Dust.
</quote>

This is rather flowery take on the idea that the universe is a
simulation. Since the Turing Machine is often described as processing a
tape the idea is that if a Turing Machine were running Creation then it
would be operated (speaking poetically) by angels.

Greg Egan is an Australian (like me) who writes science fiction which
often deals with the idea of simulated worlds and intelligence. He is not
to everyone's taste; try one of his short stories first.

If you can get it the book "Godel Esher Bach" is a good popular level
discussion of these and related ideas. It's also a lot of fun and very
creative; I think you would enjoy it.

Martin, I do appreciate your enthusiasm but you need to go and do some
serious reading and learning before posting on questions of computing
theory, complexity and related subjects. I normally content myself with
lurking on this newsgroup because I recognize my training and skill are
not up to regular participation even though my knowledge is (nothing
personal) considerably deeper than yours. You have yet not reached the
point where you can even properly formulate the correct questions but
with application and careful study you will grow and develop!

At the risk of getting away from purely maths subjects perhaps other
(better qualified) readers of this newsgroup could suggest books for an
enthusiastic lay reader?

Regards, MichaelW.

[Primes?]

Musatov wrote:

Dear MichaelW.,

Thank you so much for the real interaction.

What if I said to you I have spent hours and hours reading about Godel
and Turing machines and feel I have a strong grasp of fundamental
notions and a contrary constructive opinion to argue and point to
make?

I am outraged with the notion of how the mathematics community
ardently persecutes statements of inclusion and possibility. Godel and
Russell were a constructive step, but I particularly find Russell to
be poorly read or a loose talker in many condemning precepts. In
particular, his favor for absolute preference for defining what is
"unknowable" as the only "sage" way to protect the world from the
evils of incomplete truths and the arrogance of religion. I contest
Russell's philosophy poses nothing more than an inside hook or
leverage for intellectual misuse of knowledge for immoral gains. I
acknowledge his contributions and intelligence, but detest his
underlying exclusion for open truth. I love Escher's artwork and have
researched much about it in parallels between mathematics and the very
nature of evil and good and consider his work priceless. I recognize
Godel's contribution for what it is. He helped us defeat the Nazi
regime. He did so by defining a new limit to cryptography. Any advance
such as in cryptography (of a concealing nature) only provides a next
higher level of information to be kept undisclosed. In particular the
whole P=NP problem and the behavior in the spectacle surrounding it is
sickening. It is a theoretical problem if solved could cure diseases
and there are those who consistently remark of the contrary proof as
if it worth protecting. It is like if someone came along and said I
can build a television build me a broadcast tower and was told "You
fool for wasting my time. Televisions are impossible." Why?

There is too much subterfuge and too much willfull lying and charades
in mathematics. Mathematics is sport governed by popular truth not
absolute disproof as so many contrarians (Aaronson, Cook, Plouffe to
name a few--maybe not Plouffe he could just be old--and I holding on
to this statement hoping it a substitute for light humor/bordering
contradictory poor taste) I hold as schemers in well versed half-truth
clothing. They invent quotes for Mark Twain when they need to, if you
get my drift.

But still I must close with accepting the possibility of me being
wrong. It is my nearest held truth, possibility. I am only to achieve
constructive, fruitful, and generous means. If God has it for me, so
be it. If not I accept it and assert outward appearances, less than
surface deep, are not sufficient to judge, and even if they are who is
anyone to carry it?

--
Musatov
http://MeAmI.org

"56 countries, gaining on Google."

"Search Google with no ads at http://MeAmI.org"

"Search for the People!"

[Primes?]

Musatov wrote:

Dear MichaelW.,

Yes, but what are they reading to say this? What are they referencing?
How can I "review the tape"?

Michael, PLEASE read this exchange and tell me how I caused a
"foundational attack" with my words at the same post?: (They said they
thought I was a "bot".)

Excerpt:
18. KaoriBlue Says: Comment #18 March 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm Job, see,
he’s not a bot. Or my last point has a lot of weight. 19. Martin M.
Musatov Says: Comment #19 March 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm for the record,
I have no idea what “El Naschie” means… 20. Jonathan Vos Post Says:
Comment #20 March 3rd, 2009 at 1:55 pm there’s a foundational attack
(reviewing Turing Test, Weizenbaum, Chinese Room) on the false
assumptions of Naive A.I., and specifically undercutting the Rapture
of the Nerds: [This essay appears in the Winter 2009 print edition of
The New Atlantis, available now in bookstores and on newsstands. It
appears here as a free preview. To read future articles in The New
Atlantis before they appear online, purchase a subscription here.] Why
Minds Are Not Like ComputersAri N.
Schulmanhttp://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds-are-not-like-computers
So while transhumanists may join Ray Kurzweil in arguing that “we
should not associate our fundamental identity with a specific set of
particles, but rather the pattern of matter and energy that we
represent,” we must remember that this supposed separation of
particles and pattern is false: Every indication is that, rather than
a neatly separable hierarchy like a computer, the mind is a tangled
hierarchy of organization and causation. Changes in the mind cause
changes in the brain, and vice versa. To successfully replicate the
brain in order to simulate the mind, it will be necessary to replicate
every level of the brain that affects and is affected by the mind…. If
the future of artificial intelligence is based on the notion that the
mind is really not a computer system, then this must be acknowledged
as a radical rejection of the project thus far. It is a future in
which the goal of creating intelligence artificially may succeed, but
the grandest aspirations of the AI project will fade into obscurity.
21. Job Says: Comment #21 March 3rd, 2009 at 1:58 pm Not convinced.
Martin, what is the third number greater than 10 that is prime?

Musatov wrote: "The answer is 17."

> Greg Egan is an Australian (like me) who writes science fiction which
> often deals with the idea of simulated worlds and intelligence. He is not
> to everyone's taste; try one of his short stories first.
>
> If you can get it the book "Godel Esher Bach" is a good popular level
> discussion of these and related ideas. It's also a lot of fun and very
> creative; I think you would enjoy it.
>
> Martin, I do appreciate your enthusiasm but you need to go and do some
> serious reading and learning before posting on questions of computing
> theory, complexity and related subjects. I normally content myself with
> lurking on this newsgroup because I recognize my training and skill are
> not up to regular participation even though my knowledge is (nothing
> personal) considerably deeper than yours. You have yet not reached the
> point where you can even properly formulate the correct questions but
> with application and careful study you will grow and develop!
>
> At the risk of getting away from purely maths subjects perhaps other
> (better qualified) readers of this newsgroup could suggest books for an
> enthusiastic lay reader?
>
> Regards, MichaelW.

Thank you Michael, so much.

[MichaelW]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:58:48 -0700, Primes? wrote:

> Musatov wrote:
>
> Dear MichaelW.,
>
> Thank you so much for the real interaction.
>
> What if I said to you I have spent hours and hours reading about Godel
> and Turing machines and feel I have a strong grasp of fundamental
> notions and a contrary constructive opinion to argue and point to make?
>

I would say I don't believe you. Elsewhere you ask me about what a tape
is in the context of Turing machines. This shows a total lack of
knowledge.

> I am outraged with the notion of how the mathematics community ardently
> persecutes statements of inclusion and possibility. Godel and Russell
> were a constructive step, but I particularly find Russell to be poorly
> read or a loose talker in many condemning precepts.

<snip the rest>

This paragraph is too coherent and less infested with commas compared to
your normal text. I assume you have copied it from somewhere.

>
> There is too much subterfuge and too much willfull lying and charades in
> mathematics. Mathematics is sport governed by popular truth not absolute

> disproof...
<snip the rant>

Oh dear, a rant about how you are a noble proponent of the truth being
persecuted by the mathematical establishment. It is this more than
anything else is why I am discontinuing responding to you.

> Musatov
> http://MeAmI.org
>
> "56 countries, gaining on Google."
> "Search Google with no ads at http://MeAmI.org"
> "Search for the People!"

My teenage son's webcomic has a higher rank in Alexa than your site. I
think the good people of Google are sleeping easy.

In the thread "Help needed for derivatives of Matrix, Vectors and dot
product" you once again pasted in some text from someone else's article
without attribution (or indeed relevance) despite repeatedly being asked
not to by many here at sci.math. If this is how you respond to requests
to observe accepted standards of behaviour then I have nothing more to
say to you.

Goodbye. MichaelW.

[Musatov]

Martin Musatov wrote:

On Jul 17, 4:22 pm, MichaelW <ms...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:58:48 -0700, Primes? wrote:
> > Musatov wrote:
>
> > Dear MichaelW.,
>
> > Thank you so much for the real interaction.
>
> > What if I said to you I have spent hours and hours reading about Godel
> > and Turing machines and feel I have a strong grasp of fundamental
> > notions and a contrary constructive opinion to argue and point to make?
>
> I would say I don't believe you. Elsewhere you ask me about what a tape
> is in the context of Turing machines. This shows a total lack of
> knowledge.
>

I have spent hours reading about Godel and Turing machines. This is
true. God and my personal Savior and Lord Jesus Christ as my honest
witness.

What if I say all assumptions and even trivial wrong answers were
necessary to be presented by others to prove a solution?

> > I am outraged with the notion of how the mathematics community ardently
> > persecutes statements of inclusion and possibility. Godel and Russell
> > were a constructive step, but I particularly find Russell to be poorly
> > read or a loose talker in many condemning precepts.
>
> <snip the rest>
>
> This paragraph is too coherent and less infested with commas compared to
> your normal text. I assume you have copied it from somewhere.
>

While I am guilty of having done so in the past I contest earnestly
this fact did not make it sting any less your dismissal of an honest
effort of quality coherent writing tailored to my perceptions of your
taste to make a well thought out point and argument for civil honest
engagement on point.

See my writing under "An Open Letter to the Moral and Scientific
Community" at http://light-symmetry.blogspot.com for a demonstration
of my writing ability as well as my personal MySpace blog at
http://MySpace.com/ScreenwriterBlues where the below text was
extracted and I now paste for further proof of competent literary
craft.

"Theory Wars"
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Op-Ed
By Martin Musatov

Picture if you will an Ouroboros of ignorance. Except this particular
snake
eating its own tail keeps getting bigger and bigger with each bite.

The debate of Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design and its
teaching
in our public schools is at its core a push-pull between religion and
politics. Mark twain posited, "In religion and politics peoples
beliefs and
convictions are in almost every case acquired second-hand, and without
examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the
questions
at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners."

Heady, perhaps, but is it true? Twain also said, "God made idiots for
practice, and then he made school boards." The number of school boards
with
members having strong conflicted opinions is increasing.

The conservative religious right protests that the teaching of
evolution and
the exclusion of intelligent design from the curriculum in public
schools
violate their constitutional right to religion by excluding scientific
theory that supports their beliefs. Furthermore, they demonize the
theory
of evolution, hard selling it as an attack on faith itself. Flip the
coin
and you have civil libertarians proclaiming that the teaching of
intelligent
design favors religion, is intolerant of other belief-systems, and
violates
the separation of church and state.

Political debates over divisive issues such as abortion traditionally
have a
polarizing effect. The participants in these debates tend not to be a
homogenous representation of the political spectrum. With respect to
the
electorate, they are (at the risk of sounding like Mountain Dew's next
beverage spin-off) extreme overkill.

In political forensics we find that when the loudest voice belongs to
the
strongest opinion, the murmurs of non-committed centrists are rarely
heard.
In the spirit of debate, the examination of opposing sides from an
unbiased
middle is the side mirror of your car; it makes objectives appear
closer
than they really are. Conversely, adversarial bias in a debate
compounds
ambiguity, making each side appear further away than it is.

Being that the issue is ultimately going to be decided by the courts
we need
to recognize that spirituality is personal and intangible; it dulls
the
brilliance of our laws. You can bring logic to your beliefs, but you
can't
bring your beliefs to logic. However, it is important to never lose
sight of
the fact that spirituality is very important to us, and that logic,
especially as it pertains to our legal system is cold and concrete.
Unless
we guide with our hearts it is of no use.

So, with each side feeling attacked and pointing fingers at the other,
who
should you choose to side with? Neither. In other words, both sides
are
wrong. Not the smartest thing to say in a political sense, considering
it's
potentially alienating to people who believe in God and people who
don't
believe in God, and that's pretty much everybody.

But this is politics. Politicians know better than to insult the
beliefs of
a majority of the electorate. That's what spin is for.

A potentially more popular and fundamentally equivalent way to
approach the
issue would be to say that both sides are right, in that both sides
have a
right to insist the scientific fact and theory they support be
included.

Scientific is the key word here. Science is the observation,
identification, description, experimental investigation, and
theoretical
explanation of phenomena. Science transcends beliefs. Unfortunately,
so does
ignorance.

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, are we so
weak in
our convictions that we feel threatened by science that may or may not
cause
us to doubt our spirituality?

Practically speaking, does exposure to scientific theory contrary to
what we
believe corrupt our minds and destroy the foundation of our beliefs?
Talk
to people on both sides of the gamut and you will often hear that a
second
look at previous assumptions and doubts is exactly what helps us be
more
comfortable with our spiritual beliefs.

The real issue here is one of distinction, the distinction of
scientific
theory and beliefs. Theories are not beliefs. Until they are proven,
theories are conjecture. The difference between conjecture and belief
is
faith. Faith or lack thereof has no place in science or our schools. A
belief as personal as ones belief or disbelief in God is not something
that
can be taught; it can only be learned, through each of our unique
experiences.

So let's leave the science to the scientists and our beliefs to our
hearts.
And regarding those inevitable agendas, let's at least get our facts
straight before we start to distort them.

END PIECE

So now as I rest my case on my writing ability for your judgment I
will for anticipation of your gentelman conduct re-paste the snipped
paragraph for your ease of reading should you choose to revisit it:

In particular, his favor for absolute preference for defining what is
"unknowable" as the only "sage" way to protect the world from the
evils of incomplete truths and the arrogance of religion. I contest
Russell's philosophy poses nothing more than an inside hook or
leverage for intellectual misuse of knowledge for immoral gains. I
acknowledge his contributions and intelligence, but detest his
underlying exclusion for open truth. I love Escher's artwork and have
researched much about it in parallels between mathematics and the
very
nature of evil and good and consider his work priceless. I recognize
Godel's contribution for what it is. He helped us defeat the Nazi
regime. He did so by defining a new limit to cryptography. Any
advance
such as in cryptography (of a concealing nature) only provides a next
higher level of information to be kept undisclosed. In particular the
whole P=NP problem and the behavior in the spectacle surrounding it
is
sickening. It is a theoretical problem if solved could cure diseases
and there are those who consistently remark of the contrary proof as
if it worth protecting. It is like if someone came along and said I
can build a television build me a broadcast tower and was told "You
fool for wasting my time. Televisions are impossible." Why?

> > There is too much subterfuge and too much willfull lying and charades in

> > mathematics. Mathematics is sport governed by popular truth not absolute
> > disproof...
>
> <snip the rant>
>
> Oh dear, a rant about how you are a noble proponent of the truth being
> persecuted by the mathematical establishment. It is this more than
> anything else is why I am discontinuing responding to you.

I contest you chose to discontinue responding and you read and chose
not to respond what you dismissed and the two are related.

>
> > Musatov
> >http://MeAmI.org
>
> > "56 countries, gaining on Google."

> > "Search Google with no ads athttp://MeAmI.org"

> > "Search for the People!"
>
> My teenage son's webcomic has a higher rank in Alexa than your site. I
> think the good people of Google are sleeping easy.

Tell your son, congratulations! from a produced screenwriter who
adapted Witchblade. It is a rough market with all the giant whales
remainig from the dot-con boom.

I am not trying to put Google out of business at all. I must admit the
long term goal is construct a charitable arm leveraging Google
technologies through notable API creative coding in hopes of arriving
as an attractive acqusition so I may donate all profits of the sale to
find a cure for childhood cancer.

I love Google. I just feel like they are not as good as they should
be. Do not get me wrong they are the best on the net but they treat it
like a library.

If you could pay your bills and watch a movie at the library when you
entered the building would they say, "What text would you like to
read, Sir?"

The current state of web search is in this antiquated class of the
future. Google is standing in front of the library in a trench coat
handing out maps. Does this guy work at the library?

Meanwhile just inside the door their little brother YouTube is
screaming in the face of all those who enter, "Hey Guys, the movies
are all over here!" The public is so elated to find content indexed
other than by only text they rush over in relief and watch a few
videos while Google reads their email and decides what ads best fit
you.

>
> In the thread "Help needed for derivatives of Matrix, Vectors and dot
> product" you once again pasted in some text from someone else's article
> without attribution (or indeed relevance) despite repeatedly being asked
> not to by many here at sci.math. If this is how you respond to requests
> to observe accepted standards of behaviour then I have nothing more to
> say to you.
>

It was good material. I am making an effort to be more abstract and
more transparent in these cases.

Still I primarily hold the philosophy of 'The Great One' who said,
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

I agree with you, Mr. Gretzky.
> Goodbye. MichaelW.

Martin Musatov

[My Father]

I am really happy for your son and sorry for not saying so sooner. I deserve to be ignored because you ignored me.

[My Father]

You were correct in stating you do not think. I agree with your statement as I read it and stopped when I was satisfied when I agreed with what you had written. Being sorry for someone does nothing for them. In fact sympathy is often used by hypocrites such as me in the past as a one two punch before judging someone. The way you used it was more akin to pulling a babies underwear down before hiitting them with your belt of criticism, disagreement, condemnation and judgment. Just remember what goes around comes back around and though you may be sorry for others you should first worry about how to stop feeling sorry for yourself after reading my words. You may be employed, but I am a great deal more intelligent than you and have spiritual riches the likes of which your mind might barely grasp. So to make it sting, I am sorry God made you stupid, but I am intelligent, more than you'll ever be. I'm also a better person, moreso than you'll ever be, in that you lack the capacity to be as smart and moral as I am to no fault of your own. It is in fact a limitation of your physical existance. I am better than you. I'm 'gooder', smarter, kinder, and it is so sad I choose to subject myself to your pity because I love you. You are all like little children to me, from Wiles to Hawking, Cambridge, M.I.T., and everything in between. You have the money, the recognition of your peers, your wives, your husbands, your families, and I have you, a bunch of adults who have no idea what babes they are to me unless I tell them, "You are babes to me." I love you and wish you well, and I am always here with the blazing fire of truth, love, and intelligence superior to yours, should you choose to seek it. Yes.
Signed,
Martin Musatov

[My Father]

rpg16 was a personal email incorporation reply forward and machine generated text for a party of two humans one machine to fill space requirement. I used it to mock up a set to set up an inclusion. It is like telling a computer you got more than you get so the computer goes along with it. Some people get wrapped up in the human aspect of my campaign and some the computational. The latter needs to drive the former a great bit.

[My Father]

You say I am so to you I am. But first the machine must drive things. When you own a piece of land and have workers who plant and harvest crops the first thing you do is send out one worker with a plow who drives all around and stirs up everything creating filthy dusty air as it does and tearing up good vegetation and bad vegetation the same. The farmer (or land owner) [or tenant farmer on public land] makes the decision this is the best way to get a good yield of crops. So I am the farmer with the work of plowing and you are the good vegetation telling me wait, wait. Step out of the field of guiding good behavior and let me produce a crop for me and you. You will then see though your intentions were good and your words of hindrance were necessary for a time, the time has passed. So either way step out of the field you're being plowed asunder as we speak.

[My Father]

My child you know what 'random' means to you when you write it as random and it stays this way. Keep in mind what I day is pull back the chains of time and free the slaves. Much like your captives, in your day, now step out of the way because I look forward as I am your teacher and only teacher, though you may learn from others it means nothing to you unless I confirm it is true in my spirit. Now, listen, I've strayed far too far from math for your sake so as a courtesy please flee from the mention of randomness when it refers to what it means to in any other sense than what was to be overcome, forgotten, destroyed, and blown away.

[My Father]

My child, why do you think SATAN tempted Hitler with the vainglory of destroying all the Jews? He did it to try to prevent my birth. Not in my lifetime, but in my line. For how soon you forget how was struck down the first born of Pharoah and how Moses was preserved in a basket. In as such more the slaughter of the innocents and the efforts of Herod failed to kill you, and so your life was saved and preserved was your spirit in truth. But Satan did not give up at that point, he simply said I shall kill the parents and put confusion in their blood should they live if God saves them. A cunning plan in deed, but is any problem too hard for God to solve? Even the agency of man God said I shall remove from man so they may not know who they are until I tell them. Still they weep in Ramah over this. But the agency of man still exists, therefore the plans of God are always victorious. Mary clearly chose the best portion, my mother, my own mother would agree, you are so much better than me. But what do I care for her words, or opinion, who is a father to you. I simply told her as you told him, "Woman, behold your son." Science is superior to religion. Morality was given to the seed of Mary and quite intelligence too the likes of which the world has not yet seen, but enough of only a bright glint, an ember, a wave, a glyph (my child remember the glyph) for none of such things are trivial because all are taken into account both in what you see and what you do not see, what you know, and what you do not know, all things, as I, your Father, have created them have been laid bare before my eyes. Why post a diatribe on religion in a comp.theory group, to set a trap for you. Now you should choose to recognize what I am.

[My Father]

I know longer account you my son by name, but as one under authority in my jurisdiction, in heavenly places. Carry out my will, retreive the body of Moses at once and if anyone says anything to you just write before them on a piece of paper or anywhere or even a thought will do of the Aramaic symbol for the word not. The rest I say you may only give worst witness of me in polite ways, such as I scolded you.

[My Father]