Logic — math, philosophy & computational aspects

NOT SCIENCE BUT PSEUDOSCIENCE

For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
up the scientific establishment’s contention of man’s evolution.

For the record, not one scintilla of physical evidence exists to back
up the scientific establishment’s contention that life on earth began
on its own.

It is incredible, isn’t it, that so much could be shoved down our
throat as fact when all it is, really, is fabrication, distortion and
a pack of lies.

But even more incredible, I suppose, is that such a totally
prepostrous theory could gain the incredible stature it has.

Honest scientists — there are some — know it is a nonsensical
impossibility but why rock the boat? The preservation of vested
interests certainly outweighs all search for truth.

Members of the scientific establishment — you’ll notice I didn’t
call them psuedos, which they are — are guilty of deliberately
perpetrating a monumental fraud on all mankind.

And, just imagine, they have been able to do it with NO physical
evidence, only an army of braindead robots programed to recite
rhetorical bullshit and deny unwanted physical evidence that’s
staring them in the eye.

Ed Conrad
edconrad.com

Links

Comments (24)

Induction, any hope?

Given the truth of finitely many formulae Fa, Fb, Fc,… in a language
with names a, b, c,… for infinitely many different individuals; it
would be nice to infer that (for all x)Fx has non-zero probability.
Hume and Popper say one can’t, and I believe them.  

Nevertheless(!) can one define a language L like, but not necessarily
identical to, that of ordinary first order logic (though it must have
names for infinitely many individuals and some wff that are "singular"
and some that are "universal"); such that a probability P may be defined
on a sigma-algebra of sets of wff of L with this property:
For some universal wff U, there is a finite set S of singular wff, st
S does not logically imply U,
but P(U given S) = P({U} intersect S)/P(S) <> 0
?

I feel that I have not worded that very clearly.  My apologies if I
haven’t.  What I’m trying to ask (of course) is "Can finitely-many
singular statements ‘give’ a universal statement a non-zero
probability?"

PP

Comment (1)

Physics, Math, Logic, TeX books for sale

[Repost with a few changes]

Can’t claim to have learnt it all, :) but I need to make room on my
shelf. To keep things simple, the proposed price is 1/2 of the "books
in print" price, but all offers will be considered. Books are softcover
unless marked HC.

IN Herstein     Topics in Algebra, 2nd ed.
H Royden        Real Analysis, 3rd ed.
W Feller        An Introduction to Probability Theory Vol 1     (SOLD)
W Feller        An Introduction to Probability Theory Vol 2     (SOLD)
W Rudin         Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed
W Rudin         Real and Complex Analysis
Sternberg       Differential Geometry  HC
Hausdorff       Set Theory  HC
Mary Tiles      The Philosophy of Set Theory HC
Boole           The Laws Of Thought, HC or SC
                (You can choose HC or SC. I want to keep 1 copy. Either)

Heims           John von Neumann & Norbert Wiener

Feynman         Photon Hadron Interactions
Kolb + Turner   Early Universe HC
Hawking         A Brief HIstory of Time
Weinberg        Dreams of a final theory HC

Kopka + Daly    Introduction to LaTeX2e, 2nd ed

—–

No Comments

Cross Sums Puzzle Computer-Generated by X-Sums 98 Updated!

Like the title says!  If you don’t know what Cross Sums puzzles
are, please feel free to ask.

        Enjoy,
        Tom

Cross Sums by X-Sums 98!  More-or-Less Weekly!
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/twestbom/Puzzle.html

No Comments

LICS 2000 – Call for Short Presentations

                   Fifteenth Annual IEEE Symposium on
                       LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
            June  26 – 28, 2000, Santa Barbara, California

                     CALL FOR SHORT PRESENTATIONS

The LICS Symposium is an annual international forum on theoretical and
practical topics in computer science that relate to logic in a broad
sense.

LICS 2000 will have a session of short (5 – 10 minutes) presentations.
This session is intended for descriptions of work in progress, student
projects, and relevant research being published elsewhere; other brief
communications may be acceptable. Submissions for these presentations,
in the form of short abstracts (1 or 2 pages long, in English), should be
entered at the LICS submission site http://lics.cs.bell-labs.com/ between
March 16 and March 31, 2000. Authors will be notified of acceptance
or rejection by May 1, 2000.

Suggested, but not exclusive, topics of interest for submissions
include: abstract data types, automata theory, automated deduction,
bounded arithmetic, categorical models and logics, coinductive
techniques, concurrency and distributed computation, constraint
programming, constructive mathematics, database theory, domain theory,
finite model theory, formal aspects of program analysis, formal
methods, game semantics, hybrid systems, logics of knowledge, lambda
and combinatory calculi, linear logic, logical aspects of
computational complexity, logics in artificial intelligence, logics of
programs, logic programming, modal and temporal logics, model
checking, reasoning about security, rewriting, semantics,
specifications, type systems and type theory, universal algebra, and
verification.

The symposium is sponsored by the IEEE Technical Committee on
Mathematical Foundations of Computing in cooperation with the
Association for Symbolic Logic, and the European Association for
Theoretical Computer Science.

Collocated events: The International Static Analysis Symposium
(SAS2000) will also take place in Santa Barbara, immediately following
LICS, from June 29 to July 1. For more information, see
http://www.cis.ksu.edu/santos/sas/. In addition, several workshops are
planned in conjunction with LICS; they include workshops on
Nonmonotonicity and Belief Revision, Logical Frameworks and
Meta-Languages, Chu Spaces, Implicit Computational Complexity, and
Proof-Carrying Code.

Program Chair:
    Martin Abadi
    Bell Labs – Lucent Technologies
    3180 Porter Drive
    Palo Alto, California 94304, USA
    Email: ab…@research.bell-labs.com
           lics2…@research.bell-labs.com
    Phone: +1 650 565 7477
    Fax:   +1 650 565 7676

Program Committee:
    Pierre-Louis Curien, CNRS & U. Paris 7
    Rocco De Nicola, U. Florence
    Javier Esparza, U. Munich
    Marcelo Fiore, U. Sussex
    Harald Ganzinger, MPI Informatik
    Joe Halpern, Cornell U.
    Martin Hofmann, U. Edinburgh
    Bart Jacobs, U. Nijmegen
    Orna Kupferman, Hebrew U.
    Kim Larsen, Aalborg U.
    Leonid Libkin, Bell Labs
    James F. Lynch, Clarkson U.
    Vincent van Oostrom, U. Utrecht & CWI
    Frank Pfenning, CMU
    Benjamin C. Pierce, U. Penn
    Jon G. Riecke, Bell Labs
    Igor Walukiewicz, Warsaw U.

Publicity Chair:
   Martin Grohe
   Institut fuer Mathematische Logik
   Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg
   Eckerstr. 1, 79104 Freiburg, Germany
   Email: gr…@logik.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de

General Chair:
   John C. Mitchell
   Computer Science Department
   Stanford University
   Stanford, CA 94305-9045, USA
   Email: mitch…@cs.stanford.edu

Organizing Committee:
    M. Abadi, A. Aggarwal, M. Bezem, E. Clarke, R. Constable,
    N. Dershowitz, J. Diaz, H. Ganzinger, F. Giunchiglia, M. Grohe,
    D. Leivant, L. Libkin, G. Longo, D. A. Martin, J. Mitchell
    (chair), E. Moggi, V. Pratt, S. Ronchi della Rocca, J. Tiuryn,
    M.Y. Vardi, J. Vitter, G. Winskel.

Advisory Board:
    M. Abadi, S. Abiteboul, S. Abramsky, M. Dezani, J. Halpern,
    R. Impagliazzo, D. Kozen, L. Pacholski, A. Scedrov, D. Scott,
    J. Wing.

LICS-URL:
    http://logik.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de/lics/

[ comp.ai is moderated.  To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]
[ that fails mail your article to <comp...@moderators.isc.org>, and ]
[ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]

No Comments

Re: Just what *is* Arithmetic with multiplication only?

> Now I know of the standard way that addition can be *defined* in terms of
> multiplication and successor, but I’m not sure that this has too much to do
> with the oft-suggested implication that "arithmetic with multiplication only
> is decidable".

> Is that last statement ever made, explicitly?  I don’t recall it being so.

> And just what would it BE – arithmetic with multiplication and successor,
> but not addition.  What sensible axioms could it be given?

See Boolos and Jeffrey, Computability and Logic, 3rd ed, p 219: "Like arithmetic
without multiplication, arithmetic without addition is a decidable theory, as
Skolem showed." As for axiomatisation: I don’t know, the presentations all involve
discarding the sentences of arithmetic which contain successor and addition (it
has to be both, otherwise, as you say, the theory becomes essentially equivalent
to arithmetic as we can define addition in terms of successor and multiplication).
Hope this helps. Antony.

Comments (4)

[Q]: What are Kolmogorov graph machines?

Hallo,

Could someone explane me Kolmogorov graph machines and how does they
work, please? I heard it in the context with universal machines.

Tnak you
Andre Betz

please mailto:sky4w…@gmx.de

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Comment (1)

Help needed…

I cannot work out answers of the following test:

Assume A={2,4,5,6} , B={2,6,4} and C={1,4,6}
describe the following sets explicitly, listing their members inside curly
brackets.

I attempted replying on the right…
u is for union, P for Power and n Intersection

1- {Ø,{Ø,Ø},{Ø},{{Ø}}}    = {Ø,{Ø}}
2- Ø u {Ø}                            = {Ø,{Ø}}
3- (A u C) – B                        = {2,5}
4- P Ø                                    = Ø
5- P{Ø}                                 = {Ø,{Ø}}
6- P{3,{3}}                            ?
7- A n P A                             = Ø
8- {3,{3}} n P{3,{3}}           = {3,{3}}
9- Ø x Ø                                = {<Ø,Ø>}
10- {Ø} x {Ø}                       ={<{Ø},{Ø}>}
11- {Ø}x Ø                            ={<{Ø},Ø>}

Thanks for correcting me. All explanations are wellcome.
Cheers.
John

Comment (1)

" The Insanity of Free Will

It is quite insane to believe human beings have a free will.  Well perhaps
insane is not the right word.  Is it insane in this day and age to believe the
world is flat?, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Well if it is, then
people who believe we have free wills are insane, but I’d prefer to refer to
them as simply being stupid.

Oh, that’s not to say I blame them for their stupidity.  Of course not, for
since everything is predetermined, noone has a say over how intelligent or
stupid one is.  In fact there seems to be a certain advantage in their
maintaining their stupid insistance that they have free wills.  Its kind of
like how little kids prefer to believe there really is a Santa Claus, and it
really is kind of cruel to try to ruin their pleasant delusion.  Funny, how we
have an institution called Christmas that has as one of its major aspects the
perpetuation of delusion in our young ones.

Anyway, I don’t mean to spoil your pleasure if you believe you have a free
will.  I would like to understand why this belief is so important to you.  I
mean, it really is a kind of arrogance, like the belief once held by many
people that the Earth is the center of the Universe.  

But, really, we have a situation where about 99.99999% of the human population
is suffering under the delusion that what we think and feel and say and do is
under our control.  Of course, if this were really the case then we would all
be very intelligent and successful and happy, etc. all of the time.

Oh, right, some of you deluded souls would be quick to plead "we don’t have
full control, but we do have some control!"  Right.  Like a rock has some
control over its flight as its thrown.

So who can we blame for having most of us suffer under the delusion that we
humans have a free will?  Certainly we can’t blame God, because His will is
just as predetermined as is ours.  In other words, just as all of our thoughts
and acts originate in the eternal past, so do God’s.  

Now some of your religious neanderthals might scream at this point "hey, but
God is impotant, all powerful…He can do whatever He wants.  Oh really?   I’m
sure you’ve heard the question that asks; if God is all powerful, can He create
a rock so big that even He can’t lift it?  Hum….My question would be could
God destroy Himself.  Of course if He could that would end all claims to His
being Eternal.

But we have strayed.  Mankind is at present suffering from a collective
delusion that we have free will, and its really sad because it sets rich
against poor, black against white, tall against short, stupid against
intelligent, Americans against most of the rest of the world, etc. etc, etc.

I mean, were humankind to get over our collective insanity, we would recognize
that whatever is dividing us is really what we should be fighting, not
ourselves.  But enough of the political sermonizing.

Here’s some religious sermonizing.  Religion is about getting back to God.
Somehow it appears that we, moreso than, it seems, all of the other species of
life on the planet, have strayed from what we arrogantly refer to in lower life
forms as instinct- namely a really strong bond with God, or intelligence, or
whatever it suits you to call Him  or it.  I mean when we believe we have a
will separate from Gods’ we by this act separate ourselves from Him.

But its not our fault of course!  I mean, if we really had free will we would
will our selves not to make mistakes like believing we have free wills.

Wanna know my take on it?  well I think alot of guys refuse to understand that
free will is a myth because they don’t want to offend the women, who, don’t
seem to be able to accept this truth as readily as do men.  Mind you, I’m not
knocking women.. they do seem to have a keener instinct, or intuition than we
do, but this isn’t about that.  I mean, I think that when a guy tries to
explain to a woman that free will is impossible, a woman will begin to think
"well that means nothing we do matters, and she’ll get all teary eyed and the
guy, in order to keep getting laid, perhaps, will say "oh no, Im just
kidding… we do have free wills, and what we do does matter, lets’ go to bed."
 And that would be that.

Again, I do love women, but it seems we men have been in the thinking game alot
longer than they have so understanding the impossibility of free will would
come easier to us.  Just as understanding what a crying child wants would, of
course, come easier to most women.  Please don’t accuse me of generalising,
because the whole of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc is based on
generalizing.  Of course there are exceptions, but thats besides the point.

Anyway, Wanna know what mankind’s next leap of conciousness will be?  You
guessed it,… we will all someday overcome the delusion of free will and live
much more happy and healthy lives as a result.  Well, I really am just
guessing.  It could be that we continue to retain our delusion of free will and
continue blaming ourselves and each other for everything, and sooner or later
we will just all destroy ourselves and everyone else.  Problem solved.

Death.  I don’t mean to change the subject, but whats all this dislike of death
about?  I mean, presumably we are dead, or at least not alive, into the eternal
past, and once we die, we’ll remain dead into the eternal future. so does it
really matter if we live or die?  No.  Reincarnation?  Seems like another
story, like Adam and Eve, etc.  Maybe we do reincarnate, but why would it have
to be on this planet.  There’s an eternity of space out there to explore.

I do digress.  Free will, the ultimate delusion.  Mother nature does love her
deception.  She causes us to believe the earth is flat, and here’s another one.
 If you were to have asked someone last century whether or not our world was in
motion they would have considered you insane for asking.  I mean, do you feel
the earth moving they would say with consumate arrogance and stupidity.  Of
course we now know that our earth is hurtling through space , along with the
rest of our galaxy at the rate of millions of miles per hour, ( or something
like that).  Yes mother nature does love her deceptions.

Unfortunately 99.99999% of us are not intelligent to understand that free will
is impossible and I’m not intelligent enough to know how to get them to
understand this truth.  I mean, imagine trying to tell a two year old that
Santa is just a figment of his little imagination.  Waaaahhh.  He is too
real… he is too reall.  Hard to reason with that.

On to Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddists, and Hindus.  A good bunch of people
generally speaking, leaving aside the inquisition, etc., but really they have
done a really good job in perpetuating morals and values that, unfortunately
our present day world doesn’t like to abide by much any more.  But, alongside
all of the good they have done, and continue to do, aside from scaring people
with the threat of eternal damnation if they don’t agree with them, the
unfortunate thing about this lot is that they prefer delusion to reason.  I
mean they are like perpetual two year olds clinging to their belief in Santa
Claus.  You can’t reason with them, so they maintain their delusion and the
world stays in a state of blame.

they probably will get the armageddon their hoping for, if for no other reason
than so they can say, I told you so.  Well.  if the world stays stuck to its
delusion that we have free wills and are therefore quite right in attributing
cause, and blame, and punishment, etc. on ourselves and each other, I don’t
have the power to stop it.  

I mean, if I did, I would.  If I were God, I’d do away with this whole pain
thing.  I mean, who needs it.  Of course some stupid masochist will argue- but
you cant have pleasure without pain, its impossible.  Hah.  It’s just as
possible to spend your entire life in the sunlight and never experience
darkness as it is possible to have pleasure without feeling the pain.  

Pain and pleasure really is what its all about, but that is another story.
Free will, what a concept.  I chose to eat vanilla ice cream instead of
chocolate.  Oh really, and did you also decide to prefer the taste of vanilla
to chocolate.  No, Im not going to get into explaining the logic of why free
will is impossible.  If people are too stupid, or brainwashed to understand,
that’s the way it will have to be.  There is, again, a price to be paid for
that, but that too is another story.

Have you tired of reading this stuff yet.  If what I’ve written seems
unpleasant to you, you might want to ask yourself why you keep reading.  Well,
you keep reading because something inside you is causing you to do so.  

Actually, I’m getting tired of writing this stuff.  It would be so much easier
if humankind just acknowledged that this planet Earth has really never been
very friendly to us.  How about we all put our heads together, think really
hard, and blow it to smitherines thereby freeing our souls to explore more
pleasant parts of the universe.  I hear Venus is pretty cool.

Im serious. It could be that we just choose, theres that word again, we were
compelled to choose this planet as our home to our disadvantage.  Kind of like
we took a wrong turn.  Well, maybe our religious friends got the part about
Earth finally becoming a paradise right and all will turn out well in the end.

Which reminds me.  People are fond of saying you can’t have pleasure without
pain while in the same breath extolling the virtues of a Heaven that is
pleasant beyond pleasure.  You mean on Earth you can’t have pleasure without
pain, but in heaven you can.  Oh.  Maybe you can explain that one for me.

Free will.  The ultimate delusion.  My fate is so predetermined that as much as
I try to stay on subject I keep vearing.  OF course, if I reallly had a free
will, I would think only pleasant thoughts and probobly not bother with the
internet much, but so it is.  Oh yeah, some people say  "we don’t have total
free will,

read more »

Comment (1)

Re: Beginer to "logic" wants politically incorrect proven! Any help!

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

quisp wrote:
> The conclusion that I seek is "All Affirmative Action programs and/or
> supporters are racists.

> 1st logic statement:
> All people who discriminate based on race practice racism.
> All people who willfully practice racism are racists.
> Therefore all people who discriminate based on race are racists.

> Second logic statement:
> All Affirmative Action programs use racial quotas.
> All racial quotas discriminate based on race.
> Therefore all Affirmative Action programs discriminate based on race.

> Conclusion:
> All Affirmative Action programs discriminate based on race.
> All people who discriminate based on race are racists.
> Therefore all Affirmative Action programs and supporters are racist.

> Thanks in advance.

    Which is TRUE!!!

    The problem is that our world is fucked up and to insure that racism
don’t happen all the way, we start making racist acts like this!!! :-(
    At the moment we make racial quotas we’re setting racist rules…
(But
that doesn’t mean we have bad intentions…)

Flavio

Comments (11)