Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[Quantum_Cat <quantum-no-spam@cotse.com>]

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>> 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.

Yawn.

 *>100 N=N+1
 *>110 goto 100

Let me guess.  Your Doctoral Project.

 *>while(true)
 *>  N += 1;

Ohhhhh!  You're multilingual. ;)

You still didn't answer the question.  In precise mathematical statements, if you 
would.  ;)

 *>> 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.

Godel's Theorem has been proven.  Read his proof yourself, or since you mentioned 
that you had read Hofstadter's GEB, then try reading it again more slowly.

Chapter I would be a good start since it presents a simple formal system and will 
introduce you to the actual meaning of theorems, axioms and such.

Chapter II will introduce you to meaning.  You really need help here.

Chapter IX will take you through Godel's numbering and take you in a first pass 
through Godel's Theorem.

Chapter XX wraps things up.  Don't hurry this.  It's obvious that you missed it 
the first time.  

 *>I have shown my point. Godel's theorem is analogous to the liar paradox,

It is an error to argue to an analogy, Cooter.  Godel started with the Liar's 
Paradox, but his proof used only that mathematical reasoning you are so fond of.  
Again, GEB will refresh your memory on what reasoning is.

 *> and the liar paradox is a mere ill formed statement. 

You will have to do more than assert.  Presumably, you feel adequate enough to 
reason, so you should have no trouble demonstrating a proof of this assertion.

 *>Prove that this reasoning is incorrect if you can, or acknowledge that you
 *>can not.

Assertions are not reasoning.  If you have found an error in Godel's reasoning, 
then you surely have access to his work or GEB and can demonstrate precisely 
which step he failed at.

At THAT time, I  can prove you wrong.  Proving a nebulous assertion incorrect 
would involve a great deal of time trying to narrow your position down to 
something coherent.  And since you ooze when pressed with facts, it's very 
difficult.  ;)

 *>> 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.

Dodging my point, Cooter?  Intellectually dishonest, don't you think?

When I demonstrate that your point is in error, you try a little smokescreen by 
tossing in geometric fallacies.  Are you trying to win an argument, or find the 
truth?  ;)

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

 *>I am a shade of purple? 

A reference from Bugs Bunny.  ;)

 *>I know that you are not a moron. I know that yoou
 *>must have a very high IQ. 

No you don't.  I could be an illusion.  I could be your computer algorithm run 
wild!  Would I pass the Turing Test?  ;)

 *>Few people would know the terms that I use without
 *>this...

It's obvious that you're used to tossing out terminalogy without considering it's 
meaning.  I suppose you've had some success in Bullshitting others who haven't 
attained your pseudo-intellectual stature.

 *>>  *>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.

Yet when a statement is self referral, you backpedal and whimper about ill formed 
statements because you know that way lies contrary to your concept of 
mathematical reasoning.  Reasoning that went extinct in the late 1930's.

 *>>  *>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.

Nope.  While Turing used Godel's Theorem as a starting point, he proved that 
there will always be problems in which you will not know in advance if there is a 
solution. Also, you can not know in advance how long it might take to find a 
solution or if it will take forever to find a solution.

Proved, Cooter.  Just as Godel Proved his Theorem.

Again, if you feel that they didn't prove their theorems. you're probably capable 
of demonstrating precisely where they went wrong (if your claims of reasoning 
abilities are true).

If you can't then you are simply asserting.  That is not reasoning.

 *>> 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?

Yes.

Dodging the issue?  This should frighten you.  Turing's Halting Theorem proves 
that you can't know if your algorithm will even have a solution.  And you won't 
know how long it will take.  

 *>> You have this education?  Self taught?  With a blithering idiot for a
 *>teacher? ;)

 *>Top of my class in CS...

I could take your word for it.  Odd how much you seem not to have grasped though.

 *>>  *>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"...

Only with regard to extenuating circumstances or class of crime (e.g. 
misdemeanor, felony) or sentencing.  

They don't qualify theft with value.  

Particularly the Copyright Act.  Again, see:

http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/

You may easily find that while value is mentioned, it isn't used to qualify that 
the infringment of a copyright work isn't theft.

 *>> 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, 

I do understand it, Cooter.  Whatever gave you the idea that I didn't?  ;)

 *>thus all that remains is essentially "faith"...

Sadly, you're wrong once again.  ;)

 *>> 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.

Usenet in general, and csa2 in particular is not the forum to publish Godel's 
works all over again.  Might I suggest you wander into a bookstore and purchase 
your references there?  Or perhaps a library?

That should assist you in increasing your knowledge and prevent these nasty 
episodes where you make a fool of yourself.  ;)

 *>> 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...

Ummm... Toggle means going from one state to another.  The initial state is 
arbitrary.  Since the initial state can be either 0 or 1, your assertion that 
it's a 0 is fallacious.  Nice try, Cooter.  Looks like I was right.  A bit IS the 
smallest unit of knowledge.  ;)

 *>> 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. 

At least none that you've acknowledged.  You appear to have big blind spot when 
reasoning is used to refute your assertions.  ;)

 *>That one example of the reciprocal of my example of dividing by zero was a 
well reasoned point... 

Well, you fell into that one.  But of course, you tried to save face by asserting 
that it wasn't a valid counter example to your other assertion that all of 
mathematics was provable.

 *>I don't recall any other well reasoned points that you made...

I know.  As do the few folks still reading this thread. (Hi Jeffs!  And thanks!  
;))

I've tried to put "You ignored this" comments in where you missed them, but you 
ignored those too.  Sad.  ;)

 *>> 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.

Translation:  I got my butt kicked by this guy and I don't want to go there 
again.  ;)

 *>>  *>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. 

The truth is my goal.  I will battle for the truth.  Dropping attempts to defend 
the true will never get there.  ;)

 *>Egos tend to be much stronger than reasoning. (at least in the minds of the
 *>egoists)..

No... Reason has punctured more ego's than anything else.  It has taken down 
empires.  Reason rules.  ;)

 *>>  *>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. 

Oh?  Which error?  You DID preface that with "Given", so apparently you're 
getting confused again.

 *>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.

I suppose.  That's why you struggle so hard with defending your outdated 
assumptions, hmmm?  Life was so much simpler back < 1800's.

May I make a suggestion?  Basing your life on the demonstrative shakey quicksand 
of certainty is a big mistake.  While uncertainty is uncomfortable, it's closer 
to the truth.

 *>>  *>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...

We've already determined that a false premise leads to absurd results.  Your 
possible set set of premises includes false premises.  Knowledge cannot be 
absurd.  Therefore, your assertion is in error.

Odd indeed that earlier you squawked: "Accepting either of these two 
possibilities without complete proof of one, or total refutation of the other, 
forms an error of reasoning."  Yet you ignore that when it comes time for "based 
on a possible set of premises..."

Inconsistent must be your middle name.  ;)

 *>>  *>> 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. 

And Turing's Halting Theorem proves that you can't know if your algorithm will 
work.

 *>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.

And Turing's Halting Theorem proves that you can't know if your algorithm will 
ever stop.

 *>> 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. 

Haven't been found, Cooter.  And you are asserting that nearly everyone else has 
thrown theirs out.  Anecdotal evidence won't prove this point, Cooter.

 *>Have you ever noticed (for example) that there are at least twice as many
 *>apple2 groups than there are groups that currently get messages. 

Yup.  From the days when csa became csa2 and spawn.

 *>More than half of these groups have already died. Rubywand says that the
 *>Apple2 groups are the one last remaining resource for apple2 users, 

Heh.  RoseyWanker is full of shit.  ;)

Forums at delphi.com and the new a2central.com, and the Apple II Mail Group  
certainly exist.  Therefore, Rosey is incorrect in claiming that csa2 is "the one 
last remaining resource for apple2 users".

Or perhaps you misquoted him.  In which case, you're full of shit.  ;)

 *>now that all the user groups have ceased... 

http://www.a2central.com/ugl/index.html

Either you are lying or you're not doing your research.

 *>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.

It is the nature of this universe that things are transitory.  Even the stars 
themselves.  Don't weep over the matter.  ;)

 *>This was an example reasoning, mathematical extrapolation (of the decreasing
 *>demand for apple2 stuff),

Ah.. I thought your point was the "supply" or "archives" earlier.  So the demand 
drops.  How does this justify theft?

 *> and analytical deduction (people will not retain stuff that they don't
 *>want)  

This includes the set of pirates too, Cooter.  How does this strengthen your 
justification that it's OK to steal?

 *>See if you can label your reasoning into these categories of reasoning.

You should parse your statements better.  I translated that one to "think like 
me".  ;)

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

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

My reasoning was that you called your assertions reasoning, while my efforts were 
rhetoric.  And I was annoyed at your continued "you all are just too damn stupid 
to see" assertions.  Ad Hominem seemed to fit there.  ;)

 *>>  *>> 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)...

(*baffled look*)

Hmmmm?  I was just offering to help you understand the analogy, since it appears 
to have gone over your head.  Frank seems to have done a fine job of explaining 
it to you, so I'll withdraw my offers.  ;)

 *>>  *>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?

I LIKE making fun of ill formed statements like that, Cooter.  ;)

 *>>  *>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???

We were talking about the possibility of Hell existing.  You proposed that not 
believing in Hell was a Type II statistical error.

You have to have a sample of evidence before you can miss a significant effect in 
statistics.

There is NO evidence of Hell.  None.  Nada. Zilch.

Therefore, no samples, and no statistics.  Making your comment on Type II errors 
irrelevant and meaningless.

Thus "Babble".  Since it was of a technical nature, "TechnoBabble".

The post is still here somewhere, and my response to you.  You must have ignored 
that too.  ;)


Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat