Re: "Musatov"...

Musatov wrote:
Bacle wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:40 pm, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:58 pm, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:00 pm, Bacle
<ba...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<snip>
Could you tell _me_ though what is
wrong
with
it
(or

On Jun 30, 12:35 pm, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jun 30, 8:12 am, Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Bacle <ba...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Do you even know what a prime is,
imbecil?

Yes, a number divisible only by 1 and itself.
Sometimes 1 is not
included in the set.

But you did not know that a prime p>2 must be an
odd number?. And you made a conjecture that it must
be so?. This tells me , and I would say to most
people, that you do not, as you do not know the
very basic properties of a prime number.

In addition, even after you had it explained to you
_many_ times, you still did not get it, and kept
up with your conjecture. Hardly a sign of your
knowing what you are talking about.




I don't know what an imbecil is.

I understand what an imbecile is.

Apparently you don't know what a clever
joke/
comentary is either.

I do but there is not a clear cut mathematical
formula to comedy.

This comment of mine was not addressed to you.


I am however clever enough to cite this fact clowning
on you.

--
<snip> part by Aatu Koskensilta
, > > > > > Apparently you did not spell
"commentary"/"comentary"
correctly. I
believe I have shown it is the case.

Wow, you really got me on that one. Great
point you make, specially considering this is a
_math_ website, and I can use Spell Check any time.

My issue with you is that you deface this
site, constantly show disrespect for it, post
non-mathematics-related material regularly,
posting irrelevant material in others' threads, and you
show no interest in learning: you repeatedly ignore
corrections made to you and counterexamples to
your conjectures.

Have you considered I post not for the reactions of
others or the
appearance of my learning or display of my knowledge?


This is nonresponsive: if you are given an explanation, by people who _do_ know that a prime
2 cannot be odd, you should at least read it and
try to understand it. I doubt that you did, as
you kept making the same false assertion many times
over.

You want to make this site into your personal play
pen, experimenting and playing around. Guess what:
this is a communal website and not your personal
playpen. If everyone goes around repeating things
they don't understand 10 times like you did, the site
will become useless.

Do whatever you need to do to understand, just don't
deface this site while you are doing it. You dilute
the quality of this site by doing that.

You seem to be believe that just because you
(claim) your motives are pure, that this entitles
you to come to a site which has a certain way of
doing things, and do here whatever you feel like
doing, without considering the impact of what you
do on others, nor on the quality of the site.

Again: do what you need in order to learn, just
don't use this site as your playpen in order to do
it, as you damage the quality of the site; you are
_expected_ by most people here to be reasonably
well-informed, and to do your "scrap-paper" thinking
and experimenting _ on your own scrap paper_ , and not
use this site for your personal doodling and experimentation. You are expected to listen to the
explanations and ask well-informed questions. People
take time and energy to give you careful answers
which you ignore. You want the benefits of this site
without contributing to it.

Ultimately, if you do not like this rule, create
your own website and invite everyone to throw in
whatever helps them learn and ignore each other's
comments. But your actions are offensive to many here,
and, guess what: we --tons of people-- do not have to adapt to you and your needs, as we do not work for you;
if you join a community, as in sci.math, you are
expected to act in certain ways; specifically, not post irrelevant posts in others' threads. I don't care if this
works for you; it does not work for most people, it dilutes the quality of the site. If you don't want to
be bound by this, create your own site. But we will not
all change what we are doing just to please you, which
is what you seem to want here. I don't care what your
motives may be: don't trash this site.






You have posted either conjectures that can
be
shown to be false for even small values of n
--which ,
out of courtesy, you should check yourself. Once,
twice, can happen, but when you do it so often, it is
insulting.

When there is truth withstanding I will sometimes
take a means justify the end approach within reason. The truth I see
potentially obscured
here I'm sure far outweights the value of a few posts
to bother people
so much you would think there was more at stake than
just a few
seconds glancing over text you do not approve of.

This is _not_ your personal playpen. I don't care
what your goals or motives are: we are not here to
adapt to your tastes and your M.O. at the expense
of the quality of this site.

Garbage: if everyione did what you do, this place
would be chaos. Do your experimentation in your own
time, and do not deface this site while at it. If
everyone reposted 7-10 times after having something
explain something to you, this site would be completely useless. Guess what: your method may work for you--
at this site and at others' expense. And we do not
have to drop our way of doing things to fit _you_.

Out of courtesy, since someone
devoted their time and energy --for free -- to
explain something to you, read carefully what they
said, and do your best effort to understand, and
_then_ ask a well-informed followup questions.
Or, out of basic fairness, tell people in advance:
"I will not carefully read what you tell me, and
I will go on to splatter electornic graffiti in
this site until I get the material. I will keep
posting and ignoring your corrections until I
get the material ". See what reaction you get.
There are other people out here, and this is not
just about what works for you. Your benefit is
done at the expense of others, including myself.





In addition, even after being repeatedly shown
counter-examples to your conjectures, you make
these
conjectures again. Many times.

Have you heard of the concept of Quantum
Entanglement? Is it possible
this may be a result?

No. This is a result of you refusing to sit down
quietly and read carefully what others took pain
to explain to you-- for free . It is disrespectful
on your part. Others devote time and energy to
explain things to you, and you ignore what they
post. It is just a sign of your disrespect for
people here.


There is nothing wrong in not knowing, but it is
disrespectful to act
as if you do and repeatedly spout nonsense like you
have been
doing.

Again all I can say is I do not post for your
approval.


Missing the point again. You dilute the quality of
the site by repeating nonsense. You are pursuing
your benefit _ at our expense_ , and this is what
bothers me. Say: if my plastering graffiti all over
the walls of your house allows me to improve my
creativity: does that justify my doing it?. My
motives are pure, so I should get to trash your
place, right?. What if I am walking by your house and
I need to go to the bathroom: should I take a ***
in your garden?. It would save me time from going
back home, and it would allow me to feel more creative
after releasing my intestines. I guess I will do it,
since I am not seeking your approval.

You sincerely come off as either completely naive
and unaware, or as completely selfish, wanting to
use this site for your needs at others' expense,
and ignoring the impact on others of what you do
_this_ is my point and _not_ that I disaprove of
what you do; I frankly don't give a *** about what
you do as long as you don't do it _ at my expense_.


I don't give a *** what you do, as long as you do not deface the site, which is what you are doing. If everyone did what you do, this site would be a wasteland of undigested garbage. This is not yours nor anyone else's personal playpen for experimentation.
Experiment on your own time with your own resources, and not at everybody else's expense. Then do whatever the hell works for you and pleases you, I really don't
care what it is.
Just stop depicting yourself as the rebel being persecuted for being different. The point is that
you are acting like a parasite.

I will not apologize until the knowledge I see
potentiated in
obscurity is revealed.


Why not do that in _your own_ time, with _your own_
resources. No need to inflict and plaster your search for enlightnment on the general public. Do it --and
whatever the hell else you feel like doing -- in _your
own_ time and with _your own_ resources.
I also have my needs, but I understand that the
world must not come to a complete halt in order for
me to satisfy them. Do _you_ get that?. Or should we
be subject to and cater to all your whims in order
for you to pursue your search, damn whatever we need?
( given the fact that many have posted complaints similar to mine, I do believe I am talking for more
than just myself.)

Do _whatever the hell you want to do_ , as long as
you don't do it at someone else's expense.

This is a site for people who want to have
serious discussions of math ( of course, an
occassional
fun post is perfectly fine), and you are making a
mockery of it, turning it into a personal
playground for your bizarreness.

This from a person who constantly among many cusses
and acts how they never would in person in a serious mathematical discussion. You have
lost your claim.

You may notice that I do not
gratuitously attack posters; and I do not do it "constantly" . I have done it with people whom
I think are acting like assholes, specially after,
like you, _they don't listen_. Find a post of mine
that is aggressive towards someone other than you
or inverse 19.Can you? It is _not_ a "constant thing".
I do it because I view
your and inverse 19's _actions_ as insulting.
There is such a thing
as insulting with actions and not with words, which
is what I perceive people like you and inverse 19 are
doing. Still, I grant you that I am too agresive at times
and I need to address this, and find better ways to
deal with my own frustration.
But that does not make it right for you to use this as your playpen; to use the cliche', two wrongs don't make a right.


I don't have many sites to learn and practice
my
math; sci.math is one of the few I have.

This we agree.

You have plenty of sites where you can do whatever
r it is your
doing, and leave this site for people who are
into
math.

I am into mathematics but just not the way you see
it.

Do whatever you want to do as long as you do not
deface this site and turn it into your own playpen,
otherwise I don't care what you do in any way whatsoever. Just don't do it at my expense.

Have you ever stopped for a second to wonder why
others have been upset at you?. Do you think that the
end (your goal of learning) justifies the means?.
Do you think we should be exposed to whatever you
feel like doing just because it works for you, even
if it does so at others' expense ?. Should it all
be about what you want?

So don't give me that story about how you are
a misunderstood creative genius and others disaprove
of you, as that is not what I ( and many others)am(are) upset about.



But you chose to make this into your math
playground. And I find that offensive.


I experiment but I keep track and consider at each
step within reason.

I find it offensive and cruel the masses condone the
abusive behavior
en masse of theory they do not agree with.

You are missing the point of why people treat you
the way they do (not that this is necessarily justified)
While some may be gratuitously cruel at times, many find your _actions_ insulting too. Insults are
not just done explicitely in words, but also in actions
like your random splattering of nonsense in others'
threads.
_Your actions_ are considered abusive by others.
It is not what you do, but how you do it. Try
to at least listen to my advice and get your view
that you are the misunderstood genius out of your
head for a second , being chided for being different
(superior, in your view). Again, do whatever the
hell works for you, just not at others' expense.
Believe it or not, others have feelings that you
should consider, and it is not just about having
_your_ needs met.

Each one
comes from a
person (I think) who is necessarily abused and pushed
out for their
effort by the type of bullying I have not seen since
before 6th grade.
It is unacceptable.

So is your splattering of garbage in others' posts
and your repeated posts of the same nonsense. Guess
what, others consider your actions unacceptable. Try
putting youself in _others'_ position. Your actions
are disrespectful in that you only care about what
works for you and not on whether this hurts others.
Think about this and spare me the self-righteousness
of how you want to heal the world.

The keepers of great truths do not behave this way.


Nor do they trash others' places and disrespect them
in order to find a truth, like you do, doing what works
for you at others' expense.

You do sound like you are playing a Hollywood
character and are disconnected from the way people
really are.

This means there is greater truth than what those who
abuse hold and protect by their cruelty.


It is a (arguably overblown) reaction to your actions
together with some bad-faith cruelty.
Now convince me that my misspelling a word
is
as bad as what you are doing.

What I am doing is not bad in my eyes. It is in fact
good.

Yes, good for you, not so for others.

I do not engage in activities I see as unprofitable
or unproductive when it comes the free exchange of ideas or the producing of a
project.

Yes, your actions are productive. At other people's
expense. How rich.

At 20 years old I was an intern for Jerry
Bruckheimer, MTV Films,
Village Roadshow Pictures and International Creative
Management.

At 22 I had my Bachelor's degree in Screenwriting and
moved to Los
Angeles.

By the time I was 24 I had been through a Fellowship
for Television
Writes at Twentieth Century Fox, had a feature film
in development
with a large Hollywood Studio, and was represented by
The Endeavor
Agency.

And ??

I have been a paid writer since I was 24. I am now
30.

I continue to work as a writer though oddly enough
through exposure in
Digital Media positions (having been a part of the
team which began
the Digital Media Business at Creative Artists
Agency--(Ray Kurzweil?)
and working for eBay former CEO and President Jeff
Skoll, I became
interested in digital media as an entity,
particularly its potential
to impact the world through a mixture of social media
marketing and
storytelling. I researched algorithms and code in my
spare time as I
wrote. In 2008 I had a feature film released at
10,000 Blockbuster
stores worldwide and theatrical Global release.

And ??

In mathematics if I choose a persona it is my choice.
But do not judge
me. You do not know me. I judge behaviors as right as
wrong only when patently so. I do not judge people.

So do we. And we consider your actions to be wrong
and hurtful to our goals.


I see subterfuge. I see dishonesty. I see more
immorality then I do honest academic exchange. I
see cruelty without apparent cause and
this is most disturbing.

I gave you an explanation.

Yes, of course. You are above all and you are
with
no fault and no responsibility whatsoever for how
you are treated.


Abusive language is in an academic setting the
analogue of domestic violence.

But your abusive actions are any better?

There is never a good excuse. If I allow myself to be
the whooping boy
trust it is not my feelings at stake or my conviction
but rather your
position as abuser.

I am responding to what I consider to be abuse on
_your_ part.

There is simply more than what is obviously
apparent
to some of the
exchanges I see on Sci.Math and the fact remains
there exists a large
portion of the community who seem to guard or
protect intellectual
property or claims by their absolute insistence
of a possibility
something is impossible. It is like they are
trying to limit
themselves by insisting certain things can never
be
understood and
this frightens me.

Don't judge them. You don't know them.

It seems to me an awful like
the
suppression of
free speech and open exchange of ideas has fallen
second so far it is
hardly seen.

I personally don't care, as long as you don't
do it at my expense and do not deface this site
and make it much more difficult for me to benefit
from it. If everyone did what you do, this site
would turn to garbage.

I am sure that as usual, you will not listen.

Be positive. You may meet an improvement.

I tried to spell out as clearly and as
explicitly as possible what it is that you do that
many find to be
irritating. But you just do not listen and you make
yourself out to be the paragon of justice and all
that
is good. So you repeatedly ignore what others tell
you that you do and that they find irritating. You
are just endlessly self-righteous.

If I am self-righteousness to you then I am righteous
to more than myself.

Non-sequitur. Look up the meaning of self-righteous.

Listen: you were given disproofs of your inane
conjectures MANY times. And yet you go back to
posting _the same conjectures_. That is
irritating.

Listen, I am sorry you are annoyed. I am never cruel.

You are defacing this site. I am sorry if it
annoys you, but I will take a *** in your garden
if I need to. I am not cruel, I just want to feel
better with my intestines cleared up. I don't
care if the community disaproves of this, but
it works for me. I am sorry if you do not like
this.

On top of that, it is clear that you know
_nothing_
about primes,

SEE DEFINITION ABOVE.

SEE 6+ posts of you not knowing that a prime>2
must be odd. This is as basic as it gets about
primes, and it is a big mystery to you.
You know nothing but the definition, so spare
me the empty technicalities.

Attention to detail. Group like
ideas together
to guide streamlined logic through a narrative
thread.

??

yet you throw around inane conjectures.
THAT is irritating.

Franky, I find the word "that" irritating and
entirely unnecessary as
a participle of speech 95% of the time it is used. I
do not (or have
not to this point until now) expressed this.

But you use "this" instead, in an unclear way?


I do not
go around
attacking users of the phrase nor will I as it is
(for the most part
unrelated academically to mathematics), however the
more it is used generally the less command the individual has over language.

I can only be so explicit. I would think it is clear
from the context what I mean by it.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not enjoy
accusations. I have an utter distaste for bitter
debate with those of less maturity or
decency.

Of course you are the mature and decent one here,
lenient on yourself and harsh on others.
Guess what: your actions seem neither mature nor
decent to us, but you seem to have way too much trouble seeing our perspective. You don't even try
to, and repeatedly make yourself out to be a victim.
That is not mature, not decent.

Condescending and self-righteous, as usual.

Truth. Most on Sci.Math are less mature than me and I
have an utter distaste for their behavior.

We are not seeking your approval.


I do not judge, but if I do it is righteous. I make
no divisions about
it.

Of course not. Because you are perfectly impartial.

Posting half-baked garbage like you do is NOT
decent. Is that too hard for you to understand?


It is not decent to you. I will apologize to you if
it annoys you but
something larger is at stake.


Yes,we all have to eat *** so that you look for
the truth that matters to you. No one appointed you
official truth-seeker to be done at everyone's expense.
You tread on us and trash our site, you get trashed
in return. This is how it works outside of your Hollywood self-involved and superficial ,script view of the world.

I will take a *** in your garden and apologize if
it annoys you, but I too, am on a search for truth,
so there is something larger than your feelings at
stake

The misspelling is not worse. Your attitude and
demeanor and motives are what I call into frame.

I explained myself very explicitly.

This does not equate justification.

Your trashing is hardly justified by anything you
have said.

You had a chance to address what I said. you didn't.

By your measure of time. Who is self-revolving, one
who measures the actions of others by their own time or one who does so with patience
and careful method considering all eventualitie and
causal relationships?

You repeatedly ignored me when I said it was wrong
to repeatedly post the same conjecture after it was
repeatedly proven wrong. And I doubt you are
considering anything other than your own perspective
here.

You are too self-righteous and vain.

I am righteous. I am not vain. I am intelligent.
There is not a cruel
abusive hair on my head.

Right. Trashing others to satisfy your needs
is not abusive. As long as you are on your
search for truth, we should allow you to do
whatever pleases you and ignore our needs, o master,
o king of thy self-involved and self-adoring.

Enjoy your self-delusions and your circular
self-righteous view where you are the pure
and always a victim, never responsible for
what you get.

This puts me at least
shoulder's lenghth
above in wisdom of those who cuss and act like
demonic children

You may not like my cussing, but I am not looking
for your approval. And I am not a believer, so
your "demonic" is nonsense superstitious garbage
to me. And your actions speak louder than your
words, specially your condescenscion. Spare me
your lectures and remember that it is just you
that adolizes yourself and consider yourself
to be all good and pure.


delighting in the ridicule of others.

Yes, for no reason whatsover, right?

This puts you at length with all the religious
hypocrites who burnt others at the stake too.




I am simply looking for some answers. If you have
not
read it, please read below my open letter. It may
shed some light on the case.


End does not justify the means. You trash my site
I trash you back. That simple.


Holier than thou, as I expected.

You spoke it.

And I meant it. And I still believe so.


Friday, April 3, 2009
An Open Letter to the Moral and Scientific
Community:
A Quote:

"If smart people all had Ph.D.'s we would not
have
light bulbs." --
Martin Musatov speaking on American Entrepreneur
and
Innovator Thomas
Edison

Preface: "Computational Complexity"

So much of what I have seen since I have began
studying computational complexity simply amazes
me. I have come from an
outsiders perspective
peering into this vast new world where obvious
things
hide themselves
and complex things take center stage to be
studied
like pellets of
sand beneath a microscope. I will say this one
thing:
I have never
been treated with more disdain in an academic
setting.

And, of course, you ignore the possibility that
you
may have at least some fault in this. No, you
automatically make yourself out to be the victim.
Because you believe yourself to be so pure.

I am pure. I do not compare.

Yes you do.

This itself is irritating. Self-righteousness
is irritating. And you are self-righteous and
seem to lack any self-awareness. This is annoying
too.

Things are not always what they seem.



I have had
M.I.T. Assistant Professor Scott Aaronson
publicly
threaten to contact
my Internet Service Provider and call me a "goon"
for
disproving his
theorem publicly and by some means yet
unexplained
motivating him to
apologize to all his readers for allowing my
actions
as though he
should have been guarding against them.

And , of course, you will not quote Aaronson's
version of the incident, which basic ethics would
require you to do.

I did. I cited what he said and also his reaction.

No. You cited your version of what he said, and
_your_ description of his reaction. Would he
agree with you on your depiction ?

This is unfair and dishonest on your part. So much
h for your
questioning me and my motives when you are so
dishonest yourself.

When have I been dishonest?. Prove it or retract.
I backed up my proof that you called yourself
a prodigy. Back this up or retract it.


Not a word I spoke was untrue.

Different people have different versions of events.

I have been
called a "troll",
a "crank", and "couch boy" the last of these I
have
no idea what the colloquial means. I have had my
I.P. address blocked from contributing
to Wikipedia and have been sent threatening
emails
from Wikipedia
administrators saying, "Wikipedia doesn't need
you."

And , of course, as usual, you are just a victim,
and
you will not look into yourself to see if you may
have
played _at least_ a role on being treated this
way.

A victim is a victim. There is never an excuse for
this behavior in academia.

Nor, in our view, there is an excuse for your
behavior, your trashing.

Ethics 101: If person 'A' slashes person 'B's' tires
and person 'B'
shoots him, who is wrong?

Both. This is why actions need be addressed
separately as in a standard of ethics.

And, again, you are being dishonest and unfair
in here: you should attempt to describe the position
of
Wikipedia, and not your conveniently distorted
version
of it that makes you look good. You are very harsh
on others but very easy on yourself.

This are your words. I do not agree.


Then give a reference to their position _as stated
by them_ , and not by you.

Since I began
pursuing my proof of computational complexity my
Wikipedia profile for
my work as a screenwriter (which had remained
untouched for the better
part of three years) was immediately flagged as
"non-notable" and
deleted. And all because the mathematics and code
I
was inputting was
too advanced for wiki language to swallow without
causing system
problems and offending apparently some very
sensitive
people.

Correlation is not causation.

This is _your_ version of things. Again, you fail
to describe and/or you are oversimplifyng the
opposing position.


Done in brevity. Explain the good reason to discredit
my work as a screenwriter following this. It is punishment or attempt to discredit
for non-related matter.

I would have to know _their_ position in _their_
words, and not just your version of events.

And all
over a tiny little problem in theoretical
computer
science called
P=NP.


It is not by _any means_ a tiny little problem.

As the language suggests, it must not be given the
reaction. I will
try to be less subtle with you and more direct.

Do not condescend me. I do not consider you in
anyway to be my superior, and I will not be talked
down to by you. So much for your decency. Hypocrite.

Basically, as the case may certainly be there
seem to
be a lot of
people out there absolutely insistent that "P"
does
not equal "NP".

Right. And you are not _repeatedly_ pushing your
P=NP position in just-about every post of yours?.

I stated a fact. No judgment.



You are being a hypocrite.

Stating facts does not a hypocrite make.

But I have to wonder, if it is only theory we are
debating here, what is so vested by this people
that they defend an insistent of an
impossibility as if it were the holy grail?



The same thing that is vested in your repeatedly
pushing that P=NP.

Explain this. I am arguing my case to give a million
dollars to cure childhood cancer.

So they should ignore their genuine belief that
P=/NP so you can do this?. They should ignore
their lives' work and agree with you even if they
are not convinced by it?



How is it similar?

How about _their_ motives.?

And again, you are oversimplifying
others' position.

Explain, please.

I am too exhausted. Potaito, Potato. Too many
barriers to communication, too many different
assumptions and perspectives to be able to communicate
effectively.

It just
does not make
sense to me.

This does not mean that it does not make sense.
Have you considered the possibility that you are
being shallow?. I think you are not.


I am glad we both agree I am not being shallow.

I never said that.

Though in complete
honesty this may have been a mistyped sentence on
your part I thank
you.

You seem to
be unable to put yourself in anyone else's place.

I put myself in the place of every person who is
abused and bullied
and cussed at on Sci.Math, not because I enjoy being
the victime, but
because I can take it and it needs to be stood up to
for it to change.
You are unsufferably self-righteous.

There is suffering for a righteous man.

Look up 'self-righteous'

I will say this, especially, it does not
make sense to
argue that something such as P equals NP has to
be
impossible.

Is this _really_ what they are saying, or just
your convenient version of their position?

This is my position. I wrote it. It simply does not
make sense to
insist in the impossibility of it. I do not
understand this behavior
except to maybe protect cryptography and in this case
I have a strong
moral stance on the matter. Cryptography is not worth
a single life.

If it
were true there are well documented published
articles such as this one in the Boston Globe
which explicitly list all the
potential
benefits we might experience if the scientific
community acknowledges
P=NP.

This is dishonest on your part.

How so? Look up the article. Is the statement I made
true? A true
statement is honest. A false statement is dishonest.

There are many
proofs both of P=NP as well as of P=/NP.

Yes, a stalemate.

The proofs
on both sides are incredibly difficult to
evaluate.
So don't distor the situation as just an
unwillingness
of others.

There is obviously unwillingness on both sides. I
never states it was
not the case.

If you want to be minimally honest here,
go thru some of the serious proofs that P=/NP and
show _clearly_ what it is that is wrong with them.

I have studies some of them. I have tries this to
some extent, but
thank you for the guidance. I think you are right and
this is good
advice.

DaVinci said, "There is no such thing as a disproof,
only disproof by
another proof."

Have you ever tried this?. Or do you prefer to fool
yourself that all of those who claim that P=/NP
just choose to ignore your arguments.

See above. I got a little ahead on this answer
anticipating.

This just
seems like a convenient distortion on your part.

Again "seems".

The list includes advances in "Protein Folding"
which could spur unprecedented growth and
advances in biological research which may
well include cures for diseases like cancer and
H.I.V. So dare I say,
why are noted professors at top universities such
as
Scott Aaronson at
M.I.T. and Stephen Arthur Cook at the University
of
Toronto so
insistent of its impossibility?

Give me some refs. and convince me that this is
what they are actually saying.

Okay, will do.

It is the least you
could do , out of basic fairness: describe their
position accurately, and not just the fantasy
position
that makes you seem like a victim.

It is not fantasy if it is truth. I will present
evidence, per your
advice.

What could be so
motivating as one
would defend such a contrary position to which
being
contrariety holds
no obvious benefit for society at large.

I did not include a question mark at the end of the
prior sentence but
there should have been one. I am asking, rhetorically
or literally.
What could be so motivating?

Some may legitimately disagree with you.

I do not understand what you are disagreeing with
here. I did not make
a claim in context to this comment.
The elephant
in the room
seems to be that this argument has been raging
and
churning for years
ever since Stephen Cook invented the class
"NP-Complete" back in 1970.

My goal, my dream, in pursuing a proof that P=NP
was
not to win a million dollars and notoriety, but
to help the people in the world use
the technology to better take care of themselves
and
their families.
My goals personally are to help my young niece
who
just had an implant
put in her ear so she could hear better and to
spur
advances in cancer
research as my uncle and Godfather Michael
Schultz
was in the last
month diagnosed with kidney and bone cancer. So
still, I continue on,
every morning pursuing the solution despite the
animosity and
ignorance.

You are so good and pure that I want to
cry.(sob!)


The truth is. We do not choose our realities to the
full extent they
exist.

My dreams are simply bigger than theirs.

What makes you think that you know what their
dreams are?.

There is no greater dream than truth and all it
represents.

You make all sorts of unfounded assumptions
that conveniently make you look as the good one,
and
others as the bad ones. Are you really that
simple-
minded?.

What is simple minded about your claim of me?
<snip>


With only three months of formal education he
became
one of the greatest inventors and industrial
leaders in history.
Edison obtained 1,093 United States patents, the
most issued to any individual.

Again, showing just the side that helps you make
your case. Why not show Tesla's perspective here?

I am unfamiliar with the case of "Tesla". I am
interested.

Why not state that Edison had money. Still, what
_is_ your point on Edison?

My point is great ideas come from all people from all
walks of life.

Call this my prayer or call it my plea it is my
cry
to the scientific community and to God in heaven
can we please work together here and
accomplish some good in the world instead of
warbled
disagreement?

In which, of course, you play absolutely no role
whatsoever.

Okay, this is just spiteful and I am holding back
anger here.

My
last thought is to ask yourself why would anyone
insist on the
absolute impossibility of something that could
bring
so much good to
the world?

I think it would be great if _you_ asked yourself
questions about your own role on how you are
treated.

Your thoughts about my motives do not change the
facts addressed in
this letter.
But I doubt that you will.
.
Good, it is positive you see my conviction. My
methods may change as
the situation evolves but my motives remain constant.

Quotes by Thomas Edison:

"Hell, there are no rules here we're trying to
accomplish something."

"I didn't fail ten thousand times. I successfully
eliminated, ten thousand times, materials and
combination which wouldn't work."

Good if you have enough time and funding.

Funding is great. It is nearly impossible to obtain
outside of
academia in technology and medicine (in the current
economic state)
but good ideas I have faith there is always
possibility.

"I never perfected an invention that I did not
think
about in terms of
the service it might give others."

"I am more of a sponge than an inventor. I absorb
ideas from every
source. My principal business is giving
commercial
value to the
brilliant but misdirected ideas of others."

"Time is really the only capital that any human
being
has, and the one
thing that he can't afford to lose."

"I find out what the world needs. Then I go ahead
and
try to invent
it."

"I have more respect for the fellow with a single
idea who gets there
than for the fellow with a thousand ideas who
does
nothing."

Thank you for reading this letter. If you have
any
comments or
suggestions please feel free to contact me
through
the publisher.

Warmest regards,
Martin Musatov

P.S. You have to wonder with stories like these,
could there be something more to this whole
element that as to yet remains unseen.

My comment:
While admit that I don't know the details of your
case, I nonetheless think you are uncurably
superficial and are lacking the most basic skills in
self-analysis.

Why you so focus on me I do not understand. If the
issue received as
much scrutiny it may change.

As a result of this, you refuse to consider any
responsibility , any role you may be playing in
how you are treated.

I acknowledge my behavior annoys some people. This is
no excuse for
abusive behavior and personal character attacks.
There is no
exception.


VAST SPY SYSTEM LOOTS COMPUTERS IN 103
COUNTRIES...
(N.Y. Times, Front
Page)
Canadians find network... (AP News)

Thanks for taking the time to read and address the
points I have
raised.

I am hopeful to bridge a more constructive
relationship in all
respects.

--
M.M.Musatov

http://MeAmI.org

"Now with a growing user base in 49 countries."

"Come see why Google is better with no ads, and
support your favorite
charity for free."

"Rated best new search engine."

http://MeAmI.org
"Search for the people!"
.