Re: Source Code for OS?

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

Hiya, Cooter.

 *>> I know you're stuck on this fallacy that it's possible to _have_ full and
 *>> complete analytical knowledge.  You presented mathematics as being in that
 *>realm.
 *>>
 *>> I present my secret weapon.  Let's examine the concept and properties of
 *>>the zero.  Yes, you can list all of it's properties.  Suppose you examine
 *>>the property where any integer is divided by the zero.
 *>>
 *>> It's undefined.

 *>This is "conventional wisdom" 

No, it's not.  ;)

 *>yet as the denominator gets smaller the number gets bigger, therefore any
 *>number divided by zero is actually defined as infinity.

Nope.  The value may _approach_ infinity, but never becomes infinity.  I will 
demonstrate.

 *> (which is not a number, but, a process).

Good boy.  You are correct that infinity is not a number.  It isn't however, a 
process.

Now my demonstration in the error in your assertion that a division by zero is 
defined as infinity.

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.

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.  ;)

 *>> Definition- define: 1. To state precisely the meaning of (a word, etc) 2.
 *>To
 *>> describe the nature or properties of;explain;interpret. 3. To fix with
 *>precision.
 *>>
 *>> There.  If there's ONE item in your "analytical knowledge" that can't be
 *>known,
 *>> then your assertion that it's possible to exhaustively prove every aspect
 *>in this
 *>> domain has been proven false.  This is that ONE item.  Sorry dude.

 *>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.  ;)

 *> and your definition is "definition" is woefully inadequate. 

Got it from the dictionary.  If you have a better source, feel free to enlighten 
me.  

 *>Here's one a little better. The mathematical mapping of a precisely defined
 *>set of concepts to a term, used as a place holder for this set of concepts.
 *>(I am leaving out empiricism).

Uh...  Are you sure you're getting enough sleep?  Perhaps your medication needs 
to be looked into?

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.  ;)

 *>>  *>Example... to know that unicorns do not exist anywhere requires
 *>omniscience.
 *>>
 *>> If omniscience is a meaningful concept.

 *>It precisely means the present possession of the universal set of knowledge.

Putting words in order like that may give the appearance of meaning, but still 
lack meaning.  And example:

Your "universal set" is analogous to the unacceptable contradiction: "The set of 
all sets.".  Try a Venn diagram of THAT.  ;)

So, if your definition of omniscience contains a contradition, it must be 
meaningless. 

 *>> When you compare it's presumed
 *>> properties with others like "free will",

 *>Because of the socialization process very little (if any) free will actually
 *>exists.

Perhaps, but the universe is chaotic enough to cast doubt on predetermination as 
well.

 *>> you quickly find mutually exclusive
 *>> concepts.  One or the other must be correct, but they both can't.  And
 *>there is
 *>> no possible way to tell which IS correct.  Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
 *>again.

 *>> And you.  ;)  And this was YOUR assertion.  YOU prove that he erred.

 *>So far everyone that I have attempted to explain this to
 *>(many dozens) were so attached to their religious conviction that he was
 *>correct, that none of them could manage to focus enough attention on my
 *>point to as much as hear it far less than understand it. 

Um... Perhaps you might consider that if you see something that no one else sees, 
that there may be a possibility that you are delusional?  Hmmm?

 *>Suffice it to say that Godel makes an analogous error as the so called "Liar
 *>Paradox" if you can't get it from this, you never will.

Sigh.  Yes.   He demonstrates that any and all sufficiently powerful systems 
contains the analogous "Liar's Paradox", demonstrating a contradiction.

Perhaps you should consider the methods used in proofs...(direct, indirect .. 
i.e. contrapositive, contradiction).  There are plenty of web sources that would 
cost you nothing and might enlighten you on what Godel has done here.

 *>> That was the point, Cooter... Any sufficiently powerful system can
 *>generate a
 *>> self-reference which will collapse into a contradiction.  This precludes
 *>any
 *>> further determination of truth or falsehood.  Therefore, there are truths
 *>or
 *>> falsehood which are impossible to prove.

 *>Here is another one. Go buy me a pack of cigarettes from the first store
 *>that you come to, that never has, and never will sell cigarettes. You must
 *>buy these directly from this store, AND they must not sell them to you...
 *>(Another way to phrase the barber paradox)...

 *>Here is an even simpler version, provide me with at least three numbers that
 *>are numerically greater than five AND numerically less than three... They
 *>must also be pre-existing integer numbers, and can ONLY come form the set
 *>{7, 8, 9}.

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.

 *>>  *>With analytical truth ALL can be fully known by the mere meaning of the
 *>>  *>words, thus within this domain the possibility of error can be utterly
 *>>  *>eliminated.
 *>>
 *>> Division by zero.  Undefined.  Gotcha.

 *>I just defined it, (infinity) Gotcha back...

0 * infinity = 6

Nice try anyway.  ;)

 *>> Yup.  And unlike most other schools of thought, science is
 *>self-correcting.  It
 *>> approaches the truth at a much faster rate than ever observed by mental
 *>> gymnastics of Kant and Augustine.  Because we recognise the most common
 *>mistakes,
 *>> and take care to take them into account.

 *>Unless its every bit of all of it is entirely based on a most fundamental
 *>premise that turns out to be untrue... In that case you are merely getting
 *>closer and closer to more self consistent illusions. It could be the actual
 *>truth that nothing at all from science is true at all.

Could be.  That's the nature of science.  So far, it's working pretty damn well.  
If you ever find that fundamental premise and demonstrate that it's untrue, then 
we'll have to go back to the drawing board.  But as Godel demonstrated, there are 
truths that are unprovable.  Give it your best shot.  ;)

 *>> Not like your dogmatic assertions about
 *>> "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY".

 *>Except those things that are self evidently true because of mathematical
 *>tautology, I am only completely certain that complete certainty is utterly
 *>impossible.

"Either it is raining or it isn't".  This is the nature of those things that are 
self evidently true, Cooter.  Sorta boring to be limited to only statements that 
are unnecessarily repetitive.  ;)

 *>>  *>I ONLY completely trust deductive inference and pure
 *>>  *>(as opposed to linguistic) semantics.
 *>>
 *>> But if your premise is faulty, even deductive inference can prove an
 *>absurdity
 *>> true.  Pure Semantics?  If you can produce a system that doesn't fall prey
 *>to
 *>> Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, I'd venture to guess that it wouldn't be
 *>> sufficiently powerful to do ANYTHING.  But you could always prove me,
 *>Godel, and
 *>> the worlds mathematicians wrong and become famous.  Your call.

 *>Its like Fulton's Folly on this point, and I have greater aspirations than
 *>this single point. 

You have greater aspirations than to become famous and I'm certain, rich?  Heh.  
That's cool, I guess.  My guess is that you're delusional.

 *>No one with the capacity to understand me can possibly manage to take me
 *>seriously enough to hear me out.

Now I'm becoming convinced that you're delusional. 

 *>> That's nice. Warm fuzzies don't travel well though. ;)

 *>I have specifically derived that mathematics of this. The creation of ALL
 *>knowledge beginning with no knowledge at all. 

Ummm...  Well, seeing what problems you have with zero, I have my doubts about 
the validity of your mathematical derivation.

0 * infinity = 6  ;)

 *>The very first steps in the prequisite hierarchy of the creation of
 *>knowledge.

At least with humans and other mammals, I think the first step is the hardwired 
compulsion to suckle.  ;)

 *>Here is a little quiz what it the smallest possible unit of knowledge?

Information theory generally assigns that to the bit.  0-1.  Or True/False if you 
want to go the Logic route.

 *>>  *>> You are unable to prove this unless you demonstrate a "perfect
 *>illusion".
 *>>  *>;)
 *>>
 *>>  *>It needs not be demonstrated, merely conceived.
 *>>
 *>> Defined is more like it.  You know that the semantics of the word are
 *>where the
 *>> power lies.  If you can't come up with reasonable meaning on what a
 *>perfect
 *>> illusion is, it joins other meaningless babble, ill conceived.

 *>The movie name "Matrix" was one good example.

Or Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

 *>The people thought that they lived in cities on Earth, actually they living
 *>in pods attached to computer simulations. 

 *>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.  ;)

 *>>  *>there are many philosophical thought experiments that make this more
 *>clear.
 *>>
 *>> Agreed.  Omniscience and free will.  If one exists, the other can't.

 *>Actually Omnipotence and Free Will can not possibly co-exist. 

Sure... There a a number of others as well.

 *>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.  ;)

 *>I am not going to get into this though, I tried this once and people tend to
 *>have such strong attachments to their opinion on this as to defy all reason.

*Snork*  Damn.  I spewed milk and kibble all over my computer screen.  ;)

 *>>  *>The brain in a bottle connected to a computer is one of them.
 *>>
 *>> Hmm... Sounds like Dorktor Tom.  With a bad connection at that.  ;)
 *>>
 *>>  *>How do you know that you are not merely a brain in a bottle connected
 *>to a
 *>>  *>computer that artificially simulates your every experience of reality?
 *>>
 *>> Being a kitty of the empirical frame of mind, it just wouldn't matter.  If
 *>I lack
 *>> the evidence to find out, I'll just let Occam's Razor be my guide and act
 *>> accordingly.  ;)

 *>This is merely a fallible heuristic. 

But I've made no claim to infallibility, Pope Cooter.  ;)

 *>It by no means any possibly form of correct reasoning.

I'm not really sure how to scan that, but let me say that you've not presented 
any supporting evidence that you know how to "correctly reason".  ;)

 *>>  *>The broadest field that I have ever applied this to is the derivation
 *>of a
 *>>  *>computer language compiler that produces mathematically optimal
 *>>  *>translations.
 *>>
 *>> And how does your system compare to Godel's?  And are you familiar with
 *>those
 *>> mathematical problems that are difficult if not impossible to solve
 *>easily?  Like
 *>> the optimum route a traveling salesman can take while visiting say 20
 *>cities?
 *>> How have you demonstrated that you've achieved an optimal translation?  I
 *>smell
 *>> yet another unfounded assertion.

 *>Control flow in language translation does not suffer from these limitations.

Uh.. That's another way of saying "grammar".  You're not proposing that grammar 
will solve those types of problems that would would require more computer time to 
solve than the universe is considered to have existed?

Oh.  More Babble.

 *>>  *>There can not be a God who IS Love and also promotes hatred, thus the
 *>"god"
 *>>  *>who promotes hatred MUST be the wrong guy. In the same way that 5 must
 *>be
 *>>  *>numerically greater than 3, this can be known (analytically).
 *>>
 *>> Well, you've got a problem if you believe the dogma that there only exists
 *>ONE
 *>> omnipotent God.  Who'd be the OTHER omnipotent God them.  ;)

 *>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... ;)

 *>>  *>Example God exist or God does not exist, that completely covers every
 *>>  *>possibility within the subject domain of the existence of God. Not the
 *>>  *>slightest trace of detail has been left out of this subject domain.
 *>>
 *>> Just that we are unable to know if this existence is even meaningful.  Let
 *>me
 *>> substitute...
 *>>
 *>> Example ***** exists or ***** does not exist, that completely covers every
 *>> possibility within the subject domain of the existence of *****.
 *>>
 *>> Unless you define your terms, any constructs you come up with will be
 *>> meaningless.

 *>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?  

 *>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.  ;)

 *>> If it gives you a warm fuzzy to know something about a meaningless
 *>> statement, then go for it.  It hardly matters if no detail has been left
 *>out,
 *>> because you provided no detail in the first place.  ;)

 *>The way that I phrased it permitted any specified set of attributes to be
 *>attached to the term God... In each of these cases, the subject domain was
 *>complete.

Another substitution:

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.

 *>> Earlier, you proposed that their work was worthless except as having
 *>antique
 *>> novelty value.  Now you propose that it DOES have some value.  Enough
 *>value to
 *>> trample on the rights of the copyright holder, disregarding international
 *>laws in
 *>> the process.

 *>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.  ;)

 *>> Get your story straight or concede that copyright infringement is theft. 
 *>;)

 *>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.

Otherwise, I'm forced to believe that you merely change a words definition to 
suit your argument.  A common enough trait with toiletwater tippling Turlettes, 
but I had higher hopes for you.  

 *>In the terms of the copyright owner this value is ONLY defined as commercial
 *>viability.

Nope.  Read the law.  Commercial viabiliy is never addressed.  Quit lying.

 *>The whole purpose of copyright law is to see that authors can profit
 *>financially from their creations. 

That's correct, for the most part.

 *>The intent of this law is not to make sure that something that is discarded
 *>by its owner MUST be wasted. 

Since this "intent" is based solely on your opinion and you have no backing to 
support it, and the language of the law contradicts your assertion, we can safely 
conclude that you're full of shit.

 *>If a thing has been abandoned by its owners, others have a moral right to
 *>take it.

Since this "moral right" is based solely on your opinion and you have no backing 
to support it, and the language of the law contradicts your assertion, we can 
safely conclude that you're full of shit.

 *>>  *>They have the right to profit from their work as long as it remains
 *>>  *>profitable, or the copyright expires, which ever comes first.
 *>>
 *>> Alas, Cooter.  Even with your omniscience, you lack the power to predict
 *>the
 *>> future.  Therefore, whatever decision you or your fellow Turlettes come up
 *>with
 *>> concerning an items value prior to the expiration of the copyright is
 *>entirely
 *>> arbitray.  But that doesn't bother you, does it.  As long as you get to
 *>steal
 *>> your warez, hmmmm?

 *>I would prefer to but it, but, as a last resort I get it where I can. 

I know.  You're a thief.

 *>I will NOT allow it to be wasted merely in the misguided sense of morality. 

This stuff is archived.  You just want YOUR copy.  Thief.  

 *>I still can't find a copy of Aztec "C" for prodos for sale, in fact the
 *>first respondent to my request said that he just tossed all this stuff in
 *>the dumpster just six months ago.

And the second?  

 *>Without this "terrible piracy" every single copy of Aztec "C" will be lost
 *>forever and ever, long before the copyright expires. 

Oh?  The archival copies from the legitimate owners don't satisfy your 
kleptomaniacal urges?  You don't trust them to take care of property they've 
invested actual money on, and DO trust thieves?  Says a lot about you, I guess.  
;)

 *>>  *>They do not have the right to make sure that their work is wasted.
 *>>
 *>> Wasted... There's that "valuable worthless software" again.  ;)

 *>Its ONLY value is its historical significance...

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.  ;)

 *>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.

 *>>  *>> Is it illegal according to the Laws of our country and others to
 *>infringe
 *>>  *>on the
 *>>  *>> protections given these creators...  I refer you to:
 *>>  *>>
 *>>
 *>>  *>Yup (a) Rule
 *>>  *>       (b) Break rule
 *>>  *>       (c) therefore wrong (regardless of harmful effect)
 *>>
 *>> So... It's illegal to infringe on the copyright of author.  Nice to win
 *>that
 *>> point.  ;)

 *>You win as a Loser.

Ah... Now you're getting crabby. ;)

How are you going to take the current thrashing?  ;)

 *>You hit the mindless conformist jackpot.

I suppose that's better than being a mindless crackpot.  ;)

Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!

Quantum_Cat