Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>>  *>It does not work because infinity is a process rather than a number.
>  *>>
>  *>> No, it's not a process.  It's a symbol.
>
>  *>Ah so the length of a ray in geometry is a sideways eight?
>
> Nope.  It's unbounded.  We use the symbol of the sideways eight to represent
> that.
>
>  *>Sorry, no, you didn't bother to think this one through....
>
> So where the hell do you get a "process" out of this?  Is this yet another moment
> where you have to be a Cooter to understand?  ;)
>

Is infinity a million?
no its more.
Is it a googleplex?
No its more.
It is a googleplex to the power of googleplex,
an googleplex number of times?
No its more.

100 N=N+1
110 goto 100

while(true)
  N += 1;


>
>  *>>  *>Or perhaps you may have even made your point, that division by zero
>  *>yields
>  *>>  *>contradictory results thus it remains undefined. This still is not a
>  *>valid
>  *>>  *>counter- example for my claim...
>  *>>
>  *>> Silly me.  After all our enlightening discussion here, I've forgotten the
>  *>> infamous Pope Cooter the Looter's Precise and Definitive Law of Infallible
>  *>> Assertion.  vis.  "I'm right.  Godel is wrong.  You're wrong.  It's so
>  *>obvious
>  *>> but no one can see it because they aren't me.  I have a magic theory that
>  *>works
>  *>> better than any in the known universe.  That's not valid against my claim"
>
>  *>I could possibly be wrong about Godel, but, so far no one has ever provided
>  *>the reasoning to refute me, merely rhetoric such as yours.
>
> Uh... You've presented NO evidence or reasoning TO refute. Darn...  Pope Cooter
> the Looter's Precise and Definitive Law of Infallible Assertion.  Foiled yet
> again!  ;)
>
>  *>Of course no  one that I have spoken with fully understands Kurt's theory,
>  *>they all essentially take it on faith (even the atheists), and this violates
>  *>one of the rules in my system (making assumptions)...
>
> At the time, Mathemeticians HATED Godel's theory.  They really wanted a
> definitive, complete and consistant system.  Russell and Whitehead worked very
> hard on Principia Mathematica in an attempt to construct the foundations of
> mathematics on a logical basis.  Godel shot that down.  You can bet that
> mathemeticians worked very hard to disprove that theory.
>
> But of course, none of them have your remarkable insight and intelligence.  ;)
>

Explain to me otherwise, with reasoning instead of mere rhetoric.

>
>  *>> Well.  Forgive me.  Since all we've heard from you is unsupported
>  *>assertions,
>  *>> it's hard to get enthusiastic about your claims when they are
>  *>indistinguishable
>  *>> from the ravings of Dorktor Tom "Charles" Turley to the fifth power. ;)
>
>  *>Can you  possibly stick to reasoning, or is rhetoric the only thing in your
>  *>arsenal?
>
> Ah... I think I'm getting you now.  You think a baseless assertion by YOU is
> reasoning, but an assertion based on the documented ravings of Dorktor Tom by ME
> is rhetoric.
>

I have shown my point. Godel's theorem is analogous
to the liar paradox, and the liar paradox is a mere
ill formed statement. Prove that this reasoning is
incorrect if you can, or acknowledge that you can
not.

>
> You don't LIKE it when others assert, I'd guess.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>Your position is that math creates things that are unknowable. Well now
>  *>we
>  *>>  *>know that division by zero does not work consistenly...
>  *>>
>  *>> Do you want a consistent system, or a complete one?  You can't have both.
>
>  *>Its still complete, and consistent, merely some things can't be done.
>
> Oh Lordy!  You ARE a hoot!  You state that "Well now we know that division by
> zero does not work consistenly...", and your very next sentence states "Its still
> complete, and consistent,..."
>

Square circles are impossible too, this does not
limit either squares or circles.

>
> Do you still wonder why I question your reasoning ability and intelligence?  What
> a Maroon!

I am a shade of purple? I know that you are not
a moron. I know that yoou must have a very
high IQ. Few people would know the terms
that I use without this...

>
>  *>You can't make a square with three sides either...
>
> That's because of the definition of a square, Cooter.  If it doesn't fit the
> definition, then it's not the thing.
>

Just like the definition of a statement REQUIRES that
a statement be about something...  If a sentence is not
about something, then this sentence is not a statement.

>
>  *>The inability to divide by zero, does not show that math is either
>  *>inconsistent, or incomplete...
>
> Yes, it does, Cooter.  Get over it.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>That does not create anything unknowable, thus does not refute my
>  *>assertion
>  *>>  *>that the complete set of all analytical knowledge can both be known,
>  *>and
>  *>>  *>verifed as correct.
>  *>>
>  *>> Yes it does.  Unless you want to redefine "all" to mean "everything except
>  *>those
>  *>> things that make my claim look stupid".  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>You can't make a circle with only three sides either... Not being able to
>  *>divide by zero does in no way show math to be either incomplete, nor,
>  *>inconsistent.
>
> Faulty analogy, Cooter.  Construction of a geometric shape that fits absolutely
> none of the defined characteristics of the shape you're attempting to make is no
> where near the same class as the observed complications when the properties of
> zero encounter division. ;)
>
>  *>I could be wrong on this, but, I don't think so. are you familiar with the
>  *>math involved is proving that algorithms are correct?
>
> I am familiar with Turing's "Proof of the Unsolvability of the Halting Problem".
>

Sure and Alan's proof suffers from the same error, once again.

>
> Perhaps you should check THIS out and discover why it's shattered your claim at
> developing an algorithm that does as you say yours does.  He's demonstrated that
> there are things that are uncomputable.

Dis you know that he died by suicide?

>
> Sad how all these intelligent dead guys keep screwing up your delusions.  ;)
>
>  *>Its based in mathematical induction which does not suffer from the same
>  *>limitations of logical induction...
>
> It suffers from incomputability.
>
>  *>I can extrapolate the data structure for the universal set of knowledge.
>
> There's that "Universal Set of Knowledge" fallacy again.  "The Set of All Sets".
> You don't learn quickly, do you?
>
>  *>If it was based on graphs that can contain cycles, Godel may have been
>  *>correct, yet I have shown that it is not based on graphs such as these...
>  *>People with enough education will be familiar enough with this terminology
>  *>to realize that there might be some truth in this claim...
>
> You have this education?  Self taught?  With a blithering idiot for a teacher? ;)
>

Top of my class in CS...

>
> Terminology has no bearing as to the probability of truth, Cooter.
>
>  *>>  *>> You've just defined "definition" using the phrase "precisely
>  *>defined".
>  *>>  *>Let's try
>  *>>  *>> to avoid circular reasoning here, OK?  While your mind may be caught
>  *>in a
>  *>>  *>loop, I
>  *>>  *>> see no reason to join you in spinning your wheels.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Merely two entirely different words that are spelled and pronounced the
>  *>>  *>same, and have similar, but, not identical meanings...
>  *>>
>  *>> If you define something, you don't get a definition?  LOL!  If it walks
>  *>like a
>  *>> duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck, dude.
>  *>>
>  *>> Wow... When someone get's a couple of good jabs through to you, you begin
>  *>to
>  *>> flounder like a ballon with the air let out, don't you?  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>Mere rhetoric bereft of reasoning... Perhaps you don't have the educational
>  *>basis to dialogue in the correct terms???
>
> Correct terms!  LOL!  Do you mean terms like most folks are familiar with, or
> terms like YOU want them to be?  ;)
>
>  *>> Tell me about it.  You've been using an entirely different dictionary than
>  *>the
>  *>> rest of humanity is using for this entire debate.  ;)
>
>  *>Random House Unabridged Dictionary...
>
> So me a favor.  Check out the word "theft" and see if it qualifies the term with
> requiring "value" on what's being stolen.  ;)

Yet the ultimate definition of theft comes from lawbooks,
and not mere dictionaries, and these include "value"...

>
>
>  *>> The complement of the null set is still the set all sets.  Renaming it
>  *>doesn't
>  *>> remove the problem.  Renaming a skunk a rose does nothing but insult
>  *>roses.  Or
>  *>> skunks.  ;)
>
>  *>You always resort to mere rhetoric when reasoning fails you.
>
> Hey, if you persist in calling assertions "reasoning", and then whining about how
> I don't reason, then I'll persist in my methods as well.  ;)
>
>  *>> Where did I claim it invalidated English?  The point is that English is
>  *>capable
>  *>> of meaningless statements, and statements which are impossible to prove
>  *>true or
>  *>> false.  This seems to be extremely difficult for you to understand. ;)
>
>  *>If one sticks to the set of purely analytical knowledge there is nothing
>  *>that can not be proven true in English.
>
> Indeed.  Even falsehoods can be "proven" true.  Oh.  But that's a contradiction.
> But those don't bother you either.  You're the brilliant dude with the magic
> theory that makes you omniscient.  ;)
>
>  *>> Again, not may claim.  When a symbolic system like language, or proofs
>  *>acquire
>  *>> this power, it is inevitable that they will become incomplete or
>  *>inconsistent.
>
>  *>A mere assertion of faith in something that you do not understand... that's
>  *>pretty weird (inconsistent) for an atheist...
>
> Faith is belief without evidence or proof.  I just restated Godel's conclusion.
> That is MY basis.

Yet you don't accept Godel by understanding him, thus
all that remains is essentially "faith"...

> Your babbling assertions hardly cast doubt in that conclusion.
> And as I've researched this further, I can only conclude that you're delusional,
> and ignorant.  And have been very consistent about it too.  ;)

You don't accept Godel by fully understanding what he said,
all of your support has been of the form of, "others accept it"
and none of it has been of the form "here's how it works"...
That's "faith" man, pretty strange (inconsistent) for an atheist.

>
>  *>>  *>> Information theory generally assigns that to the bit.  0-1.  Or
>  *>>  *>> True/False if you want to go the Logic route.
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Not quite since a Bit has two states in can be further divided into
>  *>each one
>  *>>  *>of these two states separately...
>  *>>
>  *>> Oh Lofty Intellect!  Pray tell this ignorant Kitty the secret of your
>  *>subdivided
>  *>> digits!  ;)
>
>  *>Its too trivial, if the binary digit is divided into its two possible
>  *>states,
>
> OK.. I did so.  0-1, True/False..
>
>  *>then it can not be further divided...
>
> Yes...  Which is why I question how you further divide each one of these states
> separately.
>
>  *>Before this division takes place you have TWO states...
>
> Yes.  I had those.
>
>  *>What's the matter you can't divide by TWO???
>  *>(a little rhetoric of my own)...
>
> Ah.. I reread you statement..
>
> "Not quite since a Bit has two states in can be further divided into each one of
> these two states separately..."
>
> It didn't parse well with you using the word "in" instead of "it" (I assume that
> was what you meant.)
>
> So.  "Not quite".... Then which of these states IS the answer to your little
> quiz?  I'm assuming it's not zero as you've had a great deal of difficulties with
> that one.  That must make it 1.  Is that it?  Is 1 the smallest unit of
> knowledge? ;)
>

No, it all begins with nothing...
The smallest possible incremental
change is to toggle this zero bit...

>
>  *>>  *>Like I said I have already had a dialogue of many months and many
>  *>thousands
>  *>>  *>of words on this point, and truth has no chance against religious
>  *>>  *>conviction, the former being rational, and the latter being
>  *>irrational...
>  *>>
>  *>> "the latter being irrational"... Yes.  I can see that.  Then they ignore a
>  *>> person's point entirely.  ;)
>
>  *>The problem is that most people that I debate with abandon reasoning within
>  *>the process...
>
> The problem _I_ have with debating you is that you ignore my points that demolish
> your assertions.  I go to a great deal of trouble to do so to.  It makes me just
> want to quit reasoning with you and slip into the comfortable world of assertions
> myself.
>

You haven't used much actual reasoning. That one example of
the reciprocal of my example of dividing by zero was a well
reasoned point... I don't recall any other well reasoned
points that you made...

>
> Then we could duke it out with "Your wrong", "No YOU are", ad infinitum...  ;)
>
>  *>Thus reasoning has no effect on them, because they are not thinking in terms
>  *>of reasoning, they are ONLY thinking in terms of rhetoric.
>
> So... That annoys you enough that you don't want to address the refutation I
> presented about Omniscience and Free Will which you contended weren't mutually
> exclusive?
>

I have already argued this endlessly for many months, only to realize
that I was going up against an atheist with "religious conviction"
(which is typically if not always irrational), thus reasoning could not
get through a wall that was not constructed on the basis of reasoning.

>
>  *>The truth loses out to the desire to "win the argument"...
>
> In winning an argument, the truth is a MUCH more powerful ally than falsehood.
>

Unless you make the Truth the goal, and drop any attempt at
winning, you never get there. Egos tend to be much stronger
than reasoning. (at least in the minds of the egoists)..

>
>  *>>  *>constantly limit his power, and although he always remains potentially
>  *>>  *>omnipotent,
>  *>>
>  *>> LOL!  This is like being "partially pregnant".  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>> Of course, if he's constantly limited in power, he's not omnipotent.
>  *>>
>
>  *>YES that would be correct. Given that there is more than one being in the
>  *>universe (which might prove to be a false assumption, according to many
>
> I can accept that given.  I'm pretty sure _I'm_ all here.  I don't know if
> _YOU'RE_ all there though.  ;)
>

Accepting either of these two possibilities without complete
proof of one, or total refutation of the other, forms an error
of reasoning. Although improbable seems to correspond
very closely with untrue, in the case where one's fundamental
assumptions turn out to be incorrect, there is no possible
error that is greater than this.

>
>  *>Eastern religions) and given that one of these is omnipotent,
>
> Begging the question, of course.
>

Nope, it analytically derived knowledge based on a possible
set of premises...

>
>  *>> Well, since a simple "Travelling Salesman Problem" would take all our most
>  *>> powerful computers billions of years to optimize, I assume you'll be in no
>  *>hurry
>  *>> to get an answer from your algorithm. ;)
>
>  *>You have not (apparently) heard of genetic algoriths?
>
> Yes I have.  They don't guarantee an optimized solution, as you claimed your
> algorithm did.  Therefore, your algorithm is not a genetic algorithm.  How's that
> logic for you.  ;)
>

They get much closer much quicker than other methods...
I am saying that I have an efficient algorithm for infallible
reasoning, not, that this can be fully implemented on
existing equipment. It has helped me make some progress
in the area of algorithm validation, through a efficient means
of exhaustive testing. I have found a way to minmize
the intractability problem, not eliminate it.

>
>  *>>  *>> Heh.  It's done.  That software is archived.  Just not by you.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>ONLY because of  "pirates" if it was not for these
>  *>>  *>"pirates" is will all be gone in very few years...
>  *>>
>  *>> Bullshit.  :D
>
>  *>See no reasoning at all, mere rhetoric... That seems to be about all that
>  *>you have.
>
> Ah.. You must be stupid.  You claim that ONLY because of pirates, the software
> won't be gone.  I present the fact that there are other archives (the copyright
> owners, and those of folks whom actually purchased the software) to discredit
> your fallacy.
>

The copyright owners can't be found, nearly everyone
else has already thrown this stuff in the dumpster. Have
you ever noticed (for example) that there are at least
twice as many apple2 groups than there are groups
that currently get messages. More than half of these
groups have already died. Rubywand says that
the Apple2 groups are the one last remaining resource
for apple2 users, now that all the user groups have
ceased... Its only a matter of time before even
all these "pirates" don't care, and then since nobody
at all will want this stuff, nobody at all will have this stuff.

This was an example reasoning, mathematical
extrapolation (of the decreasing demand for apple2
stuff), and analytical deduction (people will not retain
stuff that they don't want)  See if you can label
your reasoning into these categories of reasoning.

>
> And you call it rhetoric.  What a Spittoon.  ;)

Example: Exactly what form of reasoning is this
last statement of yours?  (Ad Hominem)...

>
>  *>>  *>that in each and every case copyright infringement if theft, is to make
>  *>>  *>oneself into a mindless automaton...
>  *>>
>  *>> Well... Consider.  You call a cow a cow.  Perhaps you call a hundred cows,
>  *>cows.
>  *>> That doesn't make one a mindless automaton.  But calling one a duck makes
>  *>one a
>  *>> fool.
>  *>>
>  *>> I'll keep calling thieves, thieves.  You can call them what you wish.  ;)
>
>  *>You don't bother to use any reasoning in this process, that what makes you a
>  *>non-living machine...
>
> Wow... That's just's GOT to be the stupidest thing I've seen from you, Cooter...
> Well.  Maybe not.  "non-living machine".. What a wacky assertion!  ;)
>
>  *>> If I may use an analogy:
>  *>>
>  *>> You store your stuff in the garage.  One day you notice lots of people in
>  *>your
>  *>> garage going through your stuff.  You confront them and one particularly
>  *>bold one
>  *>> debates you.  As the others cart off your careworn Playboy collection, he
>  *>> declares that this isn't theft because that old stuff doesn't have any
>  *>value, and
>  *>> is going to waste simply being stored in your garage.
>
>  *>Not analogous... If the "thief" made digital copies of your digital
>  *>playboy's while you retained the originals, and these digital copies were
>  *>stored on your web site, where this "thief" could not possibly damage these
>  *>originals, then I would not care... Your error in your attempt to use
>  *>reasoning to refute me is that you are not nearly sufficiently precise in
>  *>your statements...
>
> I could use smaller words if you had trouble understanding those.  Perhaps send
> you an audio tape with that analogy on it if your reading skills aren't up to
> comprehending the alphabet?  Hire a first grade student to explain it to you?
>

What form of reasoning is this statement of yours?
(Ad Hominem again)...

>
>  *>Try another analogy, and make sure that it is analogous on every relevent
>  *>dimension this time...
>
> I guess I really need your address.  Which dimension are you living at now?  Or
> should I just address this to the "Twilight Zone"?
>

Yet another case of mere Ad Hominem?
Can't you do better than this?

>
>  *>> Under your logic, you must agree.  Because the thief judged your stuff as
>  *>> worthless.  You have no say in the matter.  The thief is supreme.
>  *>>
>  *>> Perhaps you don't even notice the theft of your stuff.  Perhaps you don't
>  *>care.
>  *>> In any case, the thief is supreme.  The thief decides the worth of your
>  *>stuff.
>  *>> Not you.
>
> I notice you ignored the point.  Basically, it's that it's absurd for any
> civilized society to allow the thieves to make the laws.  Of course, Mark Twain
> had a lot of fun with that in "The Gilded Age".  ;)
>
>  *>> Coot.  You make big claims.  Dishonest definitions.  You think your
>  *>assertions
>  *>> are the final say.  Dictionaries aren't made for YOU.  Laws aren't made
>  *>for YOU.
>  *>> YOU define morality.  YOU denigrate the efforts of those vastly more
>  *>intelligent
>
>  *>Whoa there, I have yet to have encountered anyone on any of these groups
>  *>that is vastly more intelligent than me...
>
> Yes.  You're a legend in your own mind.  ;)
>
>  *>Its statistically unlikely...
>
> Given your problems with statistics (I remind you of your Type II Error blunder),

I used the term Type II stastical error correctly,
and your response was of the form that you failed
to comprehend this term... What did you call it
techno babble???

>
> I'd venture to guess at least a 50%  probablity.  ;)
>
>  *>I met a guy once that was vastly more intelligent than me. His name was
>  *>Jerry Baker. He was Mensa's presidential candidate in 1976. He sold the
>  *>dvorak system of typewriters and had a one in a million IQ...
>
> Heh... And he ran away in terror when confronted by your reasoning disabilities..
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat