Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article <3A8394B9.876A9F1F@qwest.net>, olcott  <olcott@qwest.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Quantum_Cat wrote:
> >>
> >>  *>Essentially that Kurt goofed is his famous incompleteness theorem.
> >>
> >> Pope Cooter the Looter's Precise and Definitive Law of Infallible Assertion
> >> again.  Got it.  ;)
> >>
> >
> >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, or more precisely was.  Unfortunately the math involved in
> proving the algorithm correct was, in my experience, always more
> complex and error-prone than the algorithm itself.  Seemed like a dead
> end to me at the time.

I have advanced this process somewhat.
The key to making it work well enough
is to automate it, and I have done that.

>
>
> >Its based in mathematical
> >induction which does not suffer from the same
> >limitations of logical induction... I can extrapolate
> >the data structure for the universal set of knowledge.
> >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...
>
> I'm familiar with the terminology but the way you are putting it
> together appears to be babble.
>

Sounds more like you don't really know the terminology.
If you do, then here is a little quiz, what is the difference
between an acyclic di-graph and one that contains
cycles.

>
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."