The World Is About To Change
M.M.M.
χρηματα.Αγαπησε, σαν να μη φοβασε οτι θα πονεσεις.Χορεψε, σαν να μη σε
βλεπει κανεις.Τραγουδα, σαν να μη σ' ακουει κανεις.Ζησε, σαν να ειναι
η Γη ο Παραδεισος
That it turns, it returns It worked, therefore, as if you don't have
need from [chrimata].[Agapise], as if not [fobase] that [poneseis].
[Chorepse], as if it doesn't see you [kaneis].[Tragoyda], as if not
[s]' it hears [kaneis].[Zise], as if they is the Ground the
Paradise
Ross A. Finlayson
You're like a hobo with a cardboard "the end is near" sign, howling on
the streetcorner, proclaiming himself the next messiah, with the
generally unkempt manner.
An admitted troll, without mathematical background or demonstrated
proclivity, Musatov is a plagiarist whose stated goal is to have a
"social experiment". One-dimensional and demented, generally it
appears to be that with some computer programs to scrape posts that
are then used as input to software text and phrase generators,
Musatov's goals seem primarily to be purposefully disruptive towards
reducing the community of sci.math, sci.logic, and related
newsgroups. So, he/she/it is a troll.
That is where anyone with a sincere mathematical interest and
conscientious practice of rhetoric on mathematics could maintain a
discussion or for that manner monologue on these newsgroups in an
acceptable manner, on a thread with a single coherent identity. The
"Open Letter to Musatov" and its replies has less than fifty or so
posts, most of them identifying his misuse and abuse of the commons,
where that would be an appropriate place for him to go off.
Claiming persecution, Musatov is a persecutor of everyone, a tenacious
nit. Claiming progress and novelty, on question he's then mostly a
plagiarist in diversion from non-responses, besides the plainly
incoherent. Claiming a social experiment, he's a spamming troll.
Now, Marty, I don't want you to think that this is unfriendly, it's
friendly, and it's honest. Your purpose seems to be to disrupt
others, where you post inappropriately with no meaningful content
where others are having a discussion. (Here this is a criticism
directly of your context-free post "The World Is About To Change.")
Then besides that, you can't get "dibs" on priority of things about
which you've never made a statement, and a coherent statement, and a
meaningful statement. Your regular slews of mish-mash incoherent and
meaningless statements come across as the keening and wailing of an
alley cat.
You request that others engage you, sure, why not. Let's talk about
it, post your phone number and I'd be happy to talk with you on the
telephone, for example. That said, you should stop abusing and
persecuting sci.math, because it's wrong. Prosecute mathematics, do
it day and night, that's totally defensible, stop spamming.
Ross
tooly
Stupid thread.
But it may be salvaged if we look at the question with a more serious
bent.
I have read there are models that exist that predict we are close to a
particular type of singularity that involves 'infinite change'.
Someone came up with the idea of looking back through history and
realizing that we have been on an exponential curve where change is
doubling itself on progressively smaller and smaller time periods.
Computers and AI is perhaps a best known example of such exponential
growth.
Anyway, what might such a singularity be?...where change becomes
'infinite' [at least by the funcational math]. This is different from
AI singularity [or is it?].
Eddie Parker
of a large gun in your mouth, pull the trigger, and blow your damn
head off, showering the horrified onlookers with blood, hair,
brains,
skin, and bone fragments, making the world a better place?
MeAmI.org
You have spoken pure evil.
I will never stop until after you have.
Musatov
T.H. Ray
Frank Tipler addressed this with the Omega Point theory
(The Physics of Immortality, 1994). It's pretty
interesting if you separate it from the theology.
Tom
T.H. Ray
Frank Tipler addressed this with the Omega Point theory
Ross A. Finlayson
Today I am browsing Slashdot and there is an article about the
description of an artificial intelligence that is "evil". Then I
noted that the researcher behind the project is a Selmer Bringsjord,
an AI researcher at Rensselaer. That rang a bell because Bringsjord
is also the primary author of a paper purporting to show that P = NP
that Musatov references. So, here we have an AI researcher with lots
of experience putting together simulacrums from chat programs through
to natural language agents with regards to theories of mind, vis-a-vis
"Musatov" and his sock-puppets.
The paper about P = NP itself appeals to a notion that there is a
universe of computation so that there is an example of the physical
universe reducing complex problems in real time, towards an existence
proof via evidence. (I've put foward similar notions that the
universe is infinite and countable by existence of physical objects
modeling mathematical objects and vice versa, also there is thus
reasoning towards "meta" proof of completeness.)
So, here's a nonstandard logician with background in bots, being astro-
turfed, to an extent, by Musatov and various other sock puppets. From
speaking at a singularity conference, then we have here other
participants ("tooly") hinting in that direction of Musatov's sky-
falling.
Ross
M.M.M.
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Recently, in a reply on sci.math, Eleaticus recognized that Einstein's
> > SR equation wasn't "symmetrical" as regards the requirement of the Law
> > of the Conservation of Energy that energy IN must = energy out.
>
Musatov's proof:
> SR ignores symmetry:
> E E
> = =
> E = MCCM = E
> = =
> E E
sci.physics.relativity
May be found at:
>
> t' = t,
> x' = x - vt,
> y' = y,
> z' = z.
>
> His refusal to accept that t' must be introduced as a separate
Here it is:
Musatov's proof: SR ignores symmetry: ee = = E = MCCM = E = = ee
sci.physics. relativity t' = t, x' = x - vt, y' = y, z' = z. His
refusal to accept that t' ...
...was all that was needed. Pre-Q.E.D.
> variable springs from a massive empirical stupidity re space and time
> are described as a four-dimensional manifold, with four coordinates
> instead of a time evolution of a three-dimensional manifold, and that
> the change of coordinate system should be a change of four
> coordinates, and not a time-dependent change of three coordinates.
> This is particularly vital when it comes to fields over space and time
> (electric and magnetic fields for example).
>
> The transformation law for the differential operators under the
> Galilean transformation is given by:
>
> d/dt' = d/dt + v d/dx,
> d/dx' = d/dx,
> d/dy' = d/dy,
> d/dz' = d/dz.
>
> This shows the necessity of introducing a new variable t', since
> partial differentiation with respect to t' (constant x', y', z') is a
> different operation to partial differentiation with respect to t
> (constant x, y, z). The above transformation law is determined by the
> Chain Rule:
>
> d/dt' = dt/dt' d/dt + dx/dt' d/dx + dy/dt' d/dy + dz/dt' d/dz,
> d/dx' = dt/dx' d/dt + dx/dx' d/dx + dy/dx' d/dy + dz/dx' d/dz,
> d/dy' = dt/dy' d/dt + dx/dy' d/dx + dy/dy' d/dy + dz/dy' d/dz,
> d/dz' = dt/dz' d/dt + dx/dz' d/dx + dy/dz' d/dy + dz/dz' d/dz.
>
> The homogeneous Maxwell equations are invariant under the Galilean
> Transformation, with transformation laws:
>
> E_x' = E_x,
> E_y' = E_y - v B_z,
> E_z' = E_z + v B_y,
> B_x' = B_x,
> B_y' = B_y,
> B_z' = B_z.
>
> The derivation of these transformation laws was determined using the
> transformation laws for the differential operators given above. These
> transformation laws have the additional advantage that they determine
> the correct transformation for the force law, thus providing further
> evidence in favour of the transformation law for the differential
> operators, as above.
>
> The inhomogeneous Maxwell equations are also invariant under the
> Galilean transformation, with transformation laws:
>
> E_x' = E_x,
> E_y' = E_y,
> E_z' = E_z,
> B_x' = B_x,
> B_y' = B_y + v/c^2 E_z,
> B_z' = B_z - v/c^2 E_y,
> \rho' = \rho,
> J_x' = J_x - v \rho,
> J_y' = J_y,
> J_z' = J_z.
>
> Note the the transformation laws for the charge density and current
> density are as they should be under the Galilean transformation.
>
> Homogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean Transformation,
> and inhomogeneous equations are invariant under the Galilean
> Transformation, but Maxwell's Equations as a whole are NOT invariant
> under the Galilean Transformation, since the transformation laws
> required for the EM field for the two cases are inconsistent with each
> other. The transformation law for the EM field which makes the
> homogeneous equations invariant will not also make the inhomogeneous
> equations invariant. The transformation law for the EM field which
> makes the inhomogeneous equations invariant will not also make the
> homogeneous equations invariant.
>
> On the other hand, all of Maxwell's equations are invariant under the
> Lorentz Transformation, with transformation laws:
>
> E_x' = E_x,
> E_y' = \gamma (E_y - v B_z),
> E_z' = \gamma (E_z + v B_y),
> B_x' = B_x,
> B_y' = \gamma (B_y + v/c^2 E_z),
> B_z' = \gamma (B_z - v/c^2 E_y),
> \rho' = \gamma (\rho - v/c^2 J_x),
> J_x' = \gamma (J_x - v \rho),
> J_y' = J_y,
> J_z' = J_z,
>
> where \gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
>
> Eleaticus wrote:
> [snip]
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E
Dear Uncle Al: You, Sir, are one of the dunces who have defended
Einstein's errant theories. In one fell swoop, Eleaticus has
confirmed that SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
It's not fun being found out to be dumb, like you. Your taking pot
shots at Eleaticus only shows your futile defensiveness in the face of
simple truths. Folks, be it known: Uncle Al is a non thinking arm-
chair scientist whose ideas don’t now hold, nor never have held, any
water. Pity him and his ilk. — NoEinstein —
object: Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jul 30, 2:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Dear Eleaticus: You sir are a RARE thinker! The Law of the
> Conservation of energy demands that: E sub OUT = E sub IN. All
> mathematicians worth their salt should realize that E = (mc^2) / (1 -
> v^2/c^2)^1/2 has the energy OUT being a variable exponent greater than
> unity, while the energy IN, 'v' is increasing LINEARLY. The latter——
> as you say——"isn't symmetrical", and thus violates the LCE, as well as
> disproves SR as a "correct" (Ha, ha, HA!) theory. Congratulations for
> finally allowing the TRUTHFUL 'tail' to wag the ERRANT 'dog' that is
> Einstein's notions about anything! — NoEinstein —
Oh, dear.
doug
(1 user) More options Jul 30, 3:40 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity
From: doug <x...@xx.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:40:32 -0800
Local: Thurs, Jul 30 2009 3:40 pm
Subject: Re: SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 8:19 pm, Eleaticus <scribe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> 61848e7a-b393-4681-bca6-43f3c22bd...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>SR ignores symmetry:
>> E E
>> = =
>>E = MCCM = E
>> = =
>> E E- Hide quoted text -
>>- Show quoted text -
> Dear Eleaticus: You sir are a RARE thinker!
The Law of the
> Conservation of energy demands that: E sub OUT = E sub IN. All
> mathematicians worth their salt should realize that E = (mc^2) / (1 -
> v^2/c^2)^1/2 has the energy OUT being a variable exponent greater than
> unity, while the energy IN, 'v' is increasing LINEARLY. The latter——
> as you say——"isn't symmetrical", and thus violates the LCE, as well as
> disproves SR as a "correct" (Ha, ha, HA!) theory. Congratulations for
> finally allowing the TRUTHFUL 'tail' to wag the ERRANT 'dog' that is
> Einstein's notions about anything! — NoEinstein —
Thank you,
Martin Musatov
'aka' 'Eleaticus"
scri...@aol.com
On Aug 15, 12:29 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:56 pm, Karl Malbrain <malbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 1:56 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <f9cd064c-b351-4ae6-bdc2-d9b25d23d...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > Karl Malbrain <malbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 28, 12:23 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <5c1383c8-cd45-4501-9567-c5e902529...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Karl Malbrain <malbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 28, 9:30 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 28, 12:16 am, RussellE <reaste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:44 pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
> > > > > > > > A: for each tape position, x, following the start position of the
> > > > > > > > TM
> > > > > > > > there is a number of operations, y, after which, x will be marked.
>
> > > > > > > So, you are saying there is a step y when AxEy is true.
>
> > > > > > You don't even know what you're saying. 'y' is free in the first and
> > > > > > bound in the second.
>
> > > > > > > > B: there is a number of operations, y, after which each position x
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > gets marked is marked.
>
> > > > > > > Both of these statements are true if BNTM writes
> > > > > > > to every position of any tape.
>
> > > > > > You're doing it again. Reverting back to ambiguous language after a
> > > > > > more precise formulation has been given. That you CONTINUE to do that,
> > > > > > even after it has been pointed out to you over and over, is childishly
> > > > > > dishonest.
>
> > > > > > MoeBlee
>
> > > > > Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting something, but I thought that Virgil
> > > > > explained that your expressions A and B referred to an expression of
> > > > > "each" position on the tape, and "every" position on the tape
> > > > > respectively, as the two necessary components to expressing "all"
> > > > > positions on the tape. In other words, ALL is defined as EACH and
> > > > > EVERY.
>
> > > > > karl m
>
> > > > Those A and B statements are mine, not Moblee's. If you read them
> > > > carefully enough you will see that A allows separate steps for separate
> > > > marks but that B requires a single finite step finish all but finitely
> > > > many marks, after which, no further steps are needed.
>
> > > Yes, thank you.
>
> > > I read your A and B carefully, and introduced parenthetical remarks
> > > when referring to them exactly as you explain above.
>
> > > However, if as you introduced this post, A and B are meant to
> > > distinguish EACH x from EVERY x, to constitute ALL x, I get a
> > > contradiction with a proof by induction that both A and B are true.
>
> > > There is no concept of a "last element" in applying the axiom of
> > > induction to a premise and its basis, nor any concept of "time."
>
> > There is a concept of sequence, which serves the same purpose. And a TM
> > that proceeds through a sequence term by term, as the TM in question
> > must do, cannot reach any term prior to having accessed all prior terms.
>
> > But "B: EyAx by step y position x is marked", requires taking terms of
> > the sequence out of order, and marking all terms of the sequence before
> > actually getting to them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I see a fundamental problem here. I believe that induction is a TWO
> step process -- establish a base case and make an implication. The
> conclusion follows directly -- no sequence
> No order of operations, no timing, no other steps, nothing else but
> the conclusion.
>
> karl m- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
down is greather than
up is less than
up or down count up
[0] [11011] == [M > 1]
[0] [11111] == [M = 1]
[0] [00100] == [M < 1]
[0] [101] == [M > 0]
[0] [111] == [M = 0]
[0] [010] == [M < 0]
[0] [000]=:
[0] [101] == [M > 0]
[0] [111] == [M = 0]
[0] [010] == [M < 0]
[0] [11011] == [M < 1]
[0] [11111] == [M = 1]
[0] [00100] == [M > 1]
000 both X and Y....
[1] [111] == [M = 0] [0 = M] == [111] [1]
[0] [010] == [M < 0] [0 > M] == [010] [0]
[0] [000]=: /Alpha <> Omega\
[0] [101] == [M > 0] [0 < M] == [101] [0]
[1] [111] == [M = 0] [0 = M] == [111] [1]
in then go back to binary constant 010101010....
[1] [1111110111111] == [M > 5]
[0] [1111111111111] == [M = 5]....................[5]
[1] [0000001000000] == [M < 5]
[0] [11111011111] == [M > 4]
[1] [11111111111] == [M = 4]....................[4]
[0] [00000100000] == [M < 4]
[1] [111101111] == [M > 3]
[0] [111111111] == [M = 3]....................[3]
[1] [000010000] == [M < 3]
[0] [1110111] == [M > 2]
[1] [1111111] == [M = 2]....................[2]
[0] [0001000] == [M < 2]
[1] [11011] == [M > 1]
[0] [11111] == [M = 1]....................[1]
[1] [00100] == [M < 1]
[0] [101] == [M > 0]
[1] [111] == [M = 0]....................[0]
[0] [010] == [M < 0]
[0] [000]=: ......................................./Alpha <> Omega\
[0] [101] == [M > 0]
[1] [111] == [M = 0]....................[0]
[0] [010] == [M < 0]
[1] [11011] == [M >1]
[0] [11111] == [M = 1]....................[1]
[1] [00100] == [M < 1]
[0] [1110111] == [M > 2]
[1] [1111111] == [M = 2]....................[2]
[0] [0001000] == [M < 2]
[1] [111101111] == [M > 3]
[0] [111111111] == [M = 3]....................[3]
[1] [000010000] == [M < 3]
[0] [11111011111] == [M > 4]
[1] [11111111111] == [M = 4]....................[4]
[0] [00000100000] == [M < 4]
[1] [1111110111111] == [M > 5]
[0] [1111111111111] == [M = 5]....................[5]
[1] [0000001000000] == [M < 5]
క్లే doesn't delete in just one keystroke;it morphs 3 times first.
Sequence of the 4 symbols: క్లే + క్ల + క్ + క
harvest: Proof P=NP, క్లే
morphism:
First state:
1: క్లే
After 1 delete:
2: క్ల
After 2 deletes:
3: క్
After 3 deletes:
4: క
45M, (invert:5)M, ES, (invert:5)'
E = MC^2v
Q.E.D.
M.M.M.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Computers and AI is perhaps a best known example ... that Musatov
references. So, here we have an AI researcher with lots ... "Musatov"
and his sock-puppets. ...