Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> Take the operation 6/3=2.  The inverse is 2*3=6.  Comprehend?
>  *>>
>  *>> Now.  If 6/0=x, then 0*x=6.  Now one of the properties of zero is that a
>  *>product
>  *>> of zero and any value is 0.  If as you state, that x=infinity, then
>  *>>
>  *>> 0 * infinity = 6
>  *>>
>  *>> An error.  THIS is why mathematicians have declared a division by zero as
>  *>> undefined.
>  *>>
>
>  *>They could have just as easily defined it as infinity, and included that the
>  *>reciprocal using infinity does not work...
>
> But that would have been stupid and broken one of the properties of zero.
>
>  *>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?
Sorry, no, you didn't bother to think this one through....

>
>  *>Or perhaps because of the unusual nature of this process, Infinity * 0 =
>  *>6... This would superficially seem to cause a contradction because that
>  *>would result in an absurdity such as 6 = 7...
>
> You're sort of amusing when you panic like this.  ;)
>
>  *>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. 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)...

>
> What a glutton for punishment I must be.  ;)  To attempt to question your vast
> intellect.  ;)
>
>  *>>
>  *>> Odd that a brilliant theorist such as yourself has stumbled on one of the
>  *>truly
>  *>> basic precepts of mathematics.  It casts a shadow on all your credibility.
>  *>;)
>
>  *>Credibility is an invalid process. The scientific name for this is surface
>  *>validity, or in other words superficially how true does the assertion seem
>  *>to be, making sure that we do not hear the person out...
>
> 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?

>
>  *>>  *>Except that I just refuted your attempt at one valid counter-example,
>  *>>
>  *>> Heh... attempted, and failed miserably.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>> 0 * infinity = 6
>  *>>
>  *>> I should taunt you with that unmercifully.  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>Okay the example might be correct, but, then it does not cut it as a
>  *>counter-example.
>
> Ah... Foiled by Pope Cooter the Looter's Precise and Definitive Law of Infallible
> Assertion again.  ;)
>
>  *>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. You can't make a square with three sides either...
The inability to divide by zero, does not show that math
is either inconsistent, or incomplete...

>
>
>  *>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.

>
>  *>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? 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...

>
>  *>> 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???

>
>  *> par�a�dox    n.1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory
>  *>or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. 2. a self-contradictory
>  *>and false proposition.
>
>  *>These two mutually exclusive sense meanings to the same word spelling, are
>  *>more accurately stated as two different words with the same spelling. A more
>  *>precise way a delimiting the meaning of words would be to call the first one
>  *>paradox(1), and the second one, paradox(2). Otherwise intelligent people
>  *>often get into completely endless arguments over the meaning of a word, when
>  *>for all practical purposes these are two entirely different words, that a
>  *>spelled and pronounced the same.
>
> 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...

>
>  *>> Your "universal set" is analogous to the unacceptable contradiction: "The
>  *>set of
>  *>> all sets.".  Try a Venn diagram of THAT.  ;)
>
>  *>A precise definition of the universal set is very easy. The complementary
>  *>set to the empty set... Just because something can not be diagrammed, forms
>  *>no indication that it is not valid... Example try to draw either a line or a
>  *>ray from geometry...
>
> 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.

>
>  *>> So, if your definition of omniscience contains a contradition, it must be
>  *>> meaningless.
>  *>>
>
>  *>> Sigh.  Yes.   He demonstrates that any and all sufficiently powerful
>  *>systems
>  *>> contains the analogous "Liar's Paradox", demonstrating a contradiction.
>  *>>
>
>  *>I can say that I flew my dog for a drive, but, this does not invalidate
>  *>English... Necessarily requiring a contradiction would be another matter.
>
> 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.

>
>  *>> The Barber Paradox leads to a proof by Contradiction just as the Liar's
>  *>Paradox
>  *>> does.  Your number example would be disproved using the same method.
>  *>>
>
>  *>The barber paradox, like, nearly every one (or every one) of these
>  *>linguistic paradoxes, merely represent ill formed statements, not impossibly
>  *>difficult ones. To show that it is possible to make an ill-formed statement
>  *>does not limit the power of language at all, nor attainable truth.
>
> 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...

>
>  *>nor attainable truth.
>
> Wrong.  ;)
>
>  *>>
>  *>> Could be.  That's the nature of science.  So far, it's working pretty damn
>  *>well.
>
>  *>From every fallible measure... {Seems} to be working well would be a more
>  *>precisely accurate statement.
>
>  *>Either its raining or in some way the illusion that it is raining is
>  *>occurring or none of the above.
>
>  *>> 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, then it can
not be further divided... Before this division
takes place you have TWO states...
What's the matter you can't divide by TWO???
(a little rhetoric of my own)...

>
>
>  *>>  *>Everything that they "knew" as real was actually fake.
>  *>>
>  *>> So?  Even your infallible theoroms can't answer the truth or falsehood of
>  *>this
>  *>> picture.  So we have a premise that can't be proven.  Godel's
>  *>Incompleteness
>  *>> Theorem claims another victim.  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>Yet this is specifically outside of my defined parameters of the set of
>  *>purely conceptual knowledge, this it does not count at all.
>
> Uh.. This magic "illusion" of yours certainly doesn't lie in the empirical
> knowledge domain, Cooter.  Are you saying that this "idea" or "concept" of yours
> _doesn't_ belong in conceptual knowledge?  Must have been a Red Herring then.  Or
> you're backpedaling when one of your attempts at logic backfired. ;)
>
>  *>This would not be any example of Godel either, you goofed on this point.
>
> Wrong.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>Omniscience and Free Will can coexist.
>  *>>
>  *>> Nope.  They can't.  But unlike you, I will not simply assert and scurry
>  *>off.
>  *>>
>  *>> An omniscient being would know what color socks I would choose to wear
>  *>tomorrow.
>  *>> If I were to use my free will to choose black socks, but the omniscient
>  *>being
>  *>> knew I would choose white, then the being would be wrong.  If he was
>  *>wrong, he
>  *>> wouldn't be omniscient.
>  *>>
>  *>> If on the otherhand, all my future choices were known prior to my making
>  *>them,
>  *>> they would be predetermined, and I would have no free will.
>  *>>
>  *>> Your batting average on refutation and proofs is sinking near .000, dude.
>  *>;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>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... Thus reasoning has no effect
on them, because they are not thinking in terms of reasoning,
they are ONLY thinking in terms of rhetoric. The truth
loses out to the desire to "win the argument"...

>
>  *>Its a much simpler thing to see that Omnipotence and Free Will can not
>  *>coexist, thus an analogous variation of this same theme is analytically
>  *>supported. This is easily resolved though, God specifically chooses to
>  *>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 Eastern
religions) and given that one of these is omnipotent,
and the other(s) are not omnipotent, one can
analytically conclude that Free Will could not
possibly exist for the other(s)... This can be known
entirely from the meaning of the words...

>
> Just like being potentially intelligent doesn't make you intelligent.  ;)
>
>  *>Free Will continues to exist, while is is not actually
>  *>omnipotent. There is even one valid line-of-reasoning whereby God is
>  *>omnipotent and humans continue to have Free Will... (from the Hindu
>  *>conception that all is God)
>
> Tossing the word "valid" in your assertion doesn't make it true.. DAMN!  I forgot
> about Pope Cooter the Looter's Precise and Definitive Law of Infallible
> Assertion.  Sigh...
>
>  *>>  *>I have carefully studied all of the major religions and they are all
>  *>(most
>  *>>  *>fundamentally) saying the same thing.
>  *>>
>  *>> I dare you to put that fundamental "thing" in a paragraph, page, paper or
>  *>book.
>  *>> I've seen this assertion often and no one can ever summarize their
>  *>findings.  You
>  *>> would be the first.  Don't disappoint me, Cooter... ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>{All is God}  (even the bible say this)
>
> Wow.  Profound.  Of course, "All" includes STD's, and flatuence, Quantum Cat's
> and Cooters. ;)
>

Mathematically     U = God

>
>  *>>  *>To completely define all but the most trivial of terms would typically
>  *>many
>  *>>  *>volumes to be exhaustively complete.
>  *>>
>  *>> Yet you were claiming to have invented an infallible method using proof by
>  *>> Exhaustive Checking.  Are you retracting that claim?
>
>  *>No, merely that a human can not do this, that I why I am developing this
>  *>into an algorithm... Its like computing PI to a billion decimal places, the
>  *>compound error rate alone would make this impossible for humans, yet still
>  *>possible.
>
> 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?

>
>  *>>  *>One must define the term, then all the terms which were used in this
>  *>>  *>definition, on and on recursively so that completely defining most
>  *>anything
>  *>>  *>typically involves defining nearly everything.
>  *>>
>  *>> Yup.  You've stumbled over Godel's Incompleteness Theorom yet again, but
>  *>are too
>  *>> blind to see.  Perhaps you don't need a shrink, but an optometrist.  ;)
>
>  *>Its not analytically impossible, merely too many details for a human... My
>  *>algorithm will do it... Its not infinitely recursive (as Kurt's error)...
>
> And I'm betting it's not even functional.  ;)
>
>  *>> The way that I phrased it permitted any specified set of attributes to be
>  *>> attached to the term *Bandersnatch*... In each of these cases, the subject
>  *>domain
>  *>> was complete.
>  *>>
>  *>> Perhaps it's complete, but meaningless.
>
>  *>Not at all meaninless, it begins with the typical set attributes norammly
>  *>acribed to God, and works outward...
>
> Typical?  Religious wars have been fought over minute differences in what are
> considered attributes of God.  You infidel, you.  ;)
>
> Why don't you name these attributes and if there are any contradictions in them,
> we can put this to rest.
>
>  *>Here is somethinmg with close to no meaning...
>
>  *>azaxazw  bhyvybbv  aszzxesaaxc
>
> Uh... Which of those last two sentences?  ;)
>
>  *>Isn't is weird that the term meaningless does not mean {with less meaning}
>  *>but {utterly devoid of meaning}, this is one of many examples of fallibility
>  *>defined as an intrinsic part of Human language.
>
> What did you mean by that?  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>Enough value to future generations for historical puposes that it MUST
>  *>be
>  *>>  *>maintained...
>  *>>
>  *>> 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.

>
>
>  *>>  *>> Get your story straight or concede that copyright infringement is
>  *>theft.
>  *>>  *>;)
>
>  *>In most cases it is, in some cases its not. This must be measured against
>  *>not the letter-of-the-law but the intent of the law... To categorically say
>  *>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...

>
>
>  *>>  *>Theft involves taking something of value...
>  *>>
>  *>> I've consulted a large number of dictionaries and other sources.  None of
>  *>them
>  *>> had the requirement of "value" in the definition of theft.  If you can
>  *>find one
>  *>> that does, I will accept your appeal to this particular authority.  Please
>  *>let me
>  *>> know the edition, title and such.
>  *>>
>
>  *>As I have already said dictionaries are woefully inadequate in specifying
>  *>the precise meaning of any term...  To get a more reasonably correct
>  *>definition of this term one must consult law books, and in these cases there
>  *>is always some mention of value... But at this point its proving useless to
>  *>continue... If you can see the blatantly obvious fact that the meaning of
>  *>theft involves taking something of value, then you have shown yourself to be
>  *>an utterly close-minded moral dogmatist, that will never be able to use
>  *>reasoning in any discussion...
>
> You really are stuck on the use of the word "precise" when you never really are.
> You couldn't even get the right branch of the law involved with this software.
> Patent law indeed.  Heh.
>
> 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...

Try another analogy, and make sure that
it is analogous on every relevent dimension
this time...

>
>
> 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.
>
> You're such a Turlette, Cooter.
>
>  *>> And you trust worms whom you would think twice about letting into your
>  *>home alone
>  *>> for any period of time to safeguard this historical software over trusting
>  *>the
>  *>> copyright owner or purchasers of that software?  You're warped.  But we
>  *>knew
>  *>> that.  ;)
>  *>>
>
> I notice you didn't address THIS comment.  Odd how points you ignore points you
> can't refute.  But I guess we know how intellectually honest YOU are.  Heh.
>
>  *>>  *>It has NO commercial value to its copyright owners. (whom I spent three
>  *>>  *>whole days attempting to contact)...
>  *>>
>  *>> Thank you for trying.  Seriously.  That boosts my opinion of you
>  *>immeasurably.
>  *>>
>
>  *>You see I am not just trying to justify cheating the owners out of their
>  *>due.
>
> Perhaps.  But your justification cheats them none the less.  Screw you.
>
>  *>The historical value of the original software with its original manuals was
>  *>what I was (and still am) looking for...  But there really isn't any sense
>  *>letting this stuff go to waste in the mean time. If these owners cared at
>  *>all then either they or someone else would contact them. They simply don't
>  *>care because there is no profit in it for them... There is never again going
>  *>to be a huge market for Apple II Dos 3.3 software, and everyone knows it...
>  *>It won't be very long before even all of the "pirate" sites shut down for
>  *>utter lack of interest, then all of this history dies...
>
> Bullshit.
>
> 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... Its statistically unlikely... 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...

>
> and revered than you will ever be.  YOU lie.  YOU steal.  YOU attempt to
> rationalize your thievery.  YOU are have delusions of your mental skills.  YOU
> threatened me with Hell. ;)
>
> Frankly, I think Hell would be living as you.
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat