Re: X = Z

On Aug 2, 3:27 pm, Born Slippy <marty.musa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 2, 11:48 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Aug 2, 3:07 am, Born Slippy <marty.musa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 2, 12:09 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Aug 1, 11:14 pm, Born Slippy <marty.musa...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Then division isn't correct so letting X be 94/3 has that X isn't a
number, instead it is a collection of operations so X is (31,1), the
ordered pair indicating quotient and remainder, you can't then say
it's equal to Z-2, because Z-2 is an integer, and 63 / 2 also equals
31 mod 1.  So, no, nobody says that.

Basically that's an exercise in
miscommunication, apparently you're amused, that it's a waste of time
for others.

I do enjoy thinking about mathematics and exploring new ideas. I hope
other people can see past my non-standard methods and terms and
recognize
that as I am learning and have learned a great deal in the past year
of independent study of mathematics and programming, I don't think
it's
a waste if the fundamental ideas I express are sound.

You haven't expressed any fundamental ideas, or rather because there
is so much noise you haven't made a conscientious effort to make clear
your notions.  I'm all for nonstandard methods, but only sound ones
that are as or more useful than standard ones.

You have not understood any of them is all you may state with
certainty.



Terms can always
change and they do change and evolve and new terms and processes are
found
and will continue to be found and refined.

While that may be so, you should be able to express them in terms of
commonly known mathematical primitives.  That is to say, a point might
travel a path and return to its beginning, a goal of mathematics is
knowing where it went, if only to say why it returned.

Perhaps in a particular and very restricted computational context,
emitting those simple arithmetic statements as above could be concise
in the number of terms, but, those terms already have a natural
meaning that is shared, so, if their form was concise, they're still
ill-formed.  You should use letters of a private alphabet instead of,
say, plus, equals, etcetera, unless there is a good-faith and mutually
comprehensible pre-definition of your redefinitions of those things
that have otherwise generally canonical meaning.

The whole thing is like a big mixing put. If we had used completey
different symbols for all our numbers and letters they would still
obey the same laws of physics and interaction on this machine, that is
to say the same laws that govern us now would govern those characters.

Inherent in this principle is you are not required to fully grasp
every bit of content to mix it up or churn it as it may. In fact it is
not required you understand it all.

So even as you may admit, I have a chance at success in this regard.


No, that is just a simple lead-in to the infinite monkeys. They don't
know if they type Shakespeare.

No pre-definitions exist to a machine and none exist to the laws of
nature as we interact them.


That's arguably false, and it's easier to argue it meaningfully false
than true.

To the extent that any "we" would share in communication mutually
comprehensible facts about these things, they share.

Isn't it like the orders of
polynomials we are seeing solved in terms of its evolution? We are
starting
to the 3's in and 2's in equations replaced by the 27's and 15's and
three
digit numbers, and the rules change slightly, sometimes the equations
are
expressed a little differently but fundamental it seems like mental
robot
work.

A trained monkey on a beach could organize pebbles on the sand to
illustrate the expansions of counting around those integer
coefficients.  Some of the generated structures would need a lot more
pebbles to have laid out their representations.  In terms of that
being work, it was work to set up the 2's and 3's.  That's one reason
there is algebra instead of brute computation.  Digital computers are
very good at laying out these structures because it's a lot less work
to let an electron gate flip that actually move a pebble.  Of course
the processors of the digital computers are the results of lots of
work and large capital input processes, via economies of scale cheap.

Exactly, and you (most of Sci.math) forgive me, are the trained
monkeys
plugging in the pebbles by color and pushing the button and you have
evolved to even abstract monkeys -- but you are still just monkeys
playing with an abstract machine you built - the real discovery comes
when you realize that genius comes with exploring what is not seen
to be obvious course.


Not all daisy-pickers or rose gatherers are geniuses.




It's like you are all approaching each other saying I have this
problem
and I need the math God to confirm if it is right or wrong vs. instead
of
saying, "My instincts and hard works and thought are really telling me
we
should be able to do this, and we could be able to do this if we did
this
and then this after this... and it gets complications growing pretty
fast
as it's not always possible to clearly express where you're doing
three
of 5 little projects or concepts at a time... and they sometimes
fishtail
or combine... but always, you learn and keep going...

Sometimes you can't learn and continue at the same time.  Some things
aren't then recoverable.

So I am sorry if it is a waste of time for you as you see it,

It's a waste of time for you.

Who are you to judge what you claim?


Oh, it's simple, reducing the model, for schooled humans in natural
consideration with the normal definitions, it's provably less work to
not have to infer private meanings on tacit redefinition of terms.
Then it's so if you were a person.


all I
can
do is to my best to do my best to meet my goals, which does involve
greatly
the fundamental discovery of truth in mathematics, and despite popular
or
loud opinion, anonymously claimed mostly, I am not spamming or
shooting
binary pool for kicks.

Then, you should post under one alias, and not copy content among
posts, and not write to threads unless there is something apropos and
appropriate, among other general indicators of the conscientious
partaking

I'm not like that. I keep direction and goals
in my
life and I've done OK I guess in this respect, but I'm always trying
to do
it better, so we'll see... I can tell you one thing... my contribution
to
these forums is enlivenment.

This is sci.math, humor is irrelevant.

And beyond it there are several who have
sparked
to me with their ideas at mine and that makes me feel good and tells
me
despite the ones who say it's a waste... the net result is it's not.

So far that's just that there will always be more to learn, a meta-
statement not a statement.  These days it's quite fashionable to
bemoan the lack of mathematics to model recent physical discoveries.

You can say whatever you want but in terms of sharing mathematics in
communication, no, nobody says that, because your redefinition of
terms in your development is unrecoverable.

So, you're a troll.

And you're a person who puts people down at the time you wrote this.
Hopefully,
you'll change and see it's not an attitude a mature adult holds in
this type of forum.

Sure it is.  Hopefully you'll change and not be a troll.

I do not judge, but when I do I do so correctly.


That's hypocritical, oxymoronic.



Do you really believe you say something rational, relevant, and novel
about the classes of algorithms P and NP?

Absolutely.

Well then, what is it?

That P Versus NP exists only as a problem because it was invented to
be one by the infrastructure of its design. The people who built the
problem have leveraged all this infrastructure around it, symbolics,
programming, ect. and they have all these useful tools, and they use
them in various ways.

By stating it is a problem, and defending it is impossible to solve
it, while relying on ignorant claims of impossibility in favor of the
discovery of truth, it gives them leverage.


It's not claimed to be impossible to solve. It's an active research
area.

I am stating that P versus NP is not a problem of 'nature' or even a
physical 'limit' of computation or any resemblance of 'physics' with
its claim to 'mimic' reality. It is a joke. It is superstitious.


No, it is you with the superstition and the attempts at jokerish
foolery.

While it may be argued that there aren't correct models of the
continuum and how things are in nature vis-a-vis some model of digital
computability, in its asymptotics of a continuum, it's also fair to
say that it's a good attempt with the available tools.

It is a mockery of thought and truth in academica by high-brow
ignorance.


No, that's not necessarily so. That's just your opinion and it
enlightens of your attitude.

I am stating explicitly P versus NP is a manufactured symbolic
variable to useful purpose in a system.

There you are just reading out symbolic attachments of an inference
engine in a knowledge base.

I am stating that is only a
'hypothetical' problem, it is only a 'problem' in theory and it cannot
even be proven to be a 'real' problem.


No, that just confirms insufficient background to state the problem,
or fiat block against recursion.

I have proved it, and I'll continue to prove it.


That's not really reasonable, it that it only needs to be proven once,
besides that there isn't evidence of that one time.

And the results of my work are growing and growing and growing, like
the prime number post, and immediately two others pop up/'magically'
appear on the subject of 'primes' above and below mine, THE EXACT
second I post mine. It is not a coinidence. I have identified a causal
relationship and I am leveraging it to more impressive results each
day, such as the generation of text paragraphs not written by me that
expresss the sentiment of one or two sentences written by me, posted
by me right before it.


That could be explained simply by the attachment of script-generated
conversational affirmation demanding no holistic human thought or
input.

Those are readily available to script kidiots along the lines of the
postmodern script generators.

If you don't understand what that means, take a pencil and draw it
with variables, it is correct.


Drawing not to scale.

I wish you all the best, Ross. Be a better person and don't belittle
people, please.

Musatov


That's pleasant and personable, if impersonal.

Eh, 20 is the first non-squarefree integer that isn't the product of
successive primes, so what. (I go on about its appearance in
particular integer coefficient polynomials.)

The number twenty is kind of funny in that way just because counting
and structural expansion in integers sees leaps to twenty after some
early primes in small numbers. Similarly from two to three there are
some major differences. So, it's more about 2 and 20 than 3 and 19.
Looking over the diagrams and so on of your retro-turfed sites they
aren't very meaningful. To show that they are demands natural
presentation.

So, you haven't said anything P = NP except that it's ill-formed in a
manner you can't say, and not anything about primes except to read-out
towards reduction in small initial lists.

Ross
.

Loading