Re: A couple of book questions...(one of them about Completeness)
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Tyler Durden wrote: That any particular string can be -precisely- defined as truth or false as required by the definition of completeness, is what is not possible. Here we come down to what appears to be at the heart of the confusion as far as I see it. True, depending on who's saying it (even in a discussion of Godelian Completeness), may be different. Mathematical types may define true as being provably true, meaning something like this statement can be derived from the other statements in my system by building up from logic plus the fundamental axioms. If you're using different definitions of 'true' then you're not using the same mathematics. You're in fact comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare something mathematically you -must- use the same axioms and rules of derivation. The -only- discussion there is one of two parts: - Is the sequence of applications/operators valid? (ie Proof) - Is the sequence terminal, does it leave room for more derivation? (ie Publish or Perish) And no, there is zero confusion on what true means under Godel or Cauchy. An individual (or a large group of them) may not understand it, but that speaks to them, not it. I find that when I just can't 'get it' instead of bitching about how hard it is or how little sense it makes, I look inward. I ask myself what personality trait, learned behavior, or mode of thinking is blocking my advancement? And then I try to deal with that. When I think I've made progress I come back to the problem and take a crack at it again. The reality is that most people have problems grasping concepts or ideas because there is a conflict with other ideas/concepts they hold dear and near. In most cases of mental block it is an emotional issue not an intellectual one. People have a hard time learning not because they are stupid but because they don't deal with their emotional landscape effectively. The biggest problem most people have is lack of self-confidence [1]. Western society is training their citizens to be victims of authority (which is inherently against too rapid change as it effects their stability via the law of unintended consequences, they never grasp that simply because you 'own' something today is no right to own it tomorrow. Nor does authority provide a rational for 'breaking eggs'. They are afraid of uncertainty and chaos and want to control 'you' to minimize it, to 'their' best interests.). Eastern society has already been there and done that. Learning is auto-catalytic and iterative, it requires the ability to question the most basic assumptions. Decarte's comments about open minds being one which at least once questions everything comes to mind (though to be clear I lean toward Hobbes myself). Freedom -is- Security. [1] Ruckers Rules 1 Yes, there is a better way 2. Yes, -you- can do it 3. Seek the Gnarl! -- We don't see things as they are, [EMAIL PROTECTED] we see them as we are. www.ssz.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anais Nin www.open-forge.org
Re: CNN.com - WiFi activists on free Web crusade - Nov. 29, 2002
At 12:54 PM 12/3/2002 -0500, Sunder wrote: Simple. Signal strength from at least three access points will pinpoint your location. If any of the AP's have known GPS coordinates, your location can be interpolated. To fix this, change your MAC address (or whatever WiFi uses for that), randomly every time you move around, and don't share things that can identify your machine. i.e don't run things such as SMTP, FTP, Microsoft File sharing which give away your host name, and don't accept cookies from web sites that can track you, and make sure your browser doesn't leak your email address, and be aware that anything you do can be sniffed. In the late 70s, I was at TRW we built inflatable (beach ball) antennas for a black project. About 1/3 of the balloon's inside surface was aluminized and the feed was simply snapped into place at the opposite side. The antenna could either be used hand-held or place in a ring mount on a flat surface. This sort of approach could work well for cell phones and WiFi cards with external antenna port. For cell phones the entire instrument could be placed in at the reflector's focus and operated via a mic/headset adapter (some older Nokia models have an external antenna port behind a small rubber plug on the rear.) A State must pay attention to virtue, because the law is a covenant or a guarantee of men's just claims, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just -- Aristotle
Re: A couple of book questions...(one of them about Completeness)
Well, this is quite a post, and I agree with most of it. As for the Godel stuff, there's a part of it with which I disagree (or at least as far as I take what you said). If you want to compare something mathematically you -must- use the same axioms and rules of derivation. The -only- discussion there is one of two parts: Is the sequence of applications/operators valid? (ie Proof) Is the sequence terminal, does it leave room for more derivation? (ie Publish or Perish) Well, not necessarily, unless I misunderstand you. Take the Fermat's last theorem example I gave (a^n+b^n=c^n for a,b,c,n integers but n2). And let's say I want to prove (or disprove) the statement This has no solution for n2. There are two 'distinct' methods of determining the validity of the statement. One is by what is normally considered a proof. In other words, by building up from axioms using the logical rules of the system. The other is to actually find a solution for a,b,c and n. In this case the statement will have been disproven, but not by a series of logical statements and axioms. It is now seen to be untrue, but not via the methods of proof. Thus, the statement is untrue, and (possibly) unprovably untrue (which is the same thing as saying the statement's negation is unprovably true). Now if subsequent truths need to be made but require the statement above (a^n+b^n=c^n has no solution for n2), even though we know that it is true (or untrue, in my example above), to build subsequent truths we need to include this statement as an axiom even though we know it's true. It's true, but unprovable. But perhaps this is what you meant. And no, there is zero confusion on what true means under Godel or Cauchy. Yes, I agree, and the confusion to which I referred had to do with the term true as it seemed to be used by various parties in the conversation. From this alone I think a big take away here is that true in the Godelian sense means something probably quite different from what many believe it to be. The reality is that most people have problems grasping concepts or ideas because there is a conflict with other ideas/concepts they hold dear and near. In most cases of mental block it is an emotional issue not an intellectual one. People have a hard time learning not because they are stupid but because they don't deal with their emotional landscape effectively. Couldn't agree more. Reason is the whore of desire. Well, not always, but its clear to me that most of the time we start with the conclusion we want and then work backwards! Most human beings seem to stumble upon some little piece of flotsam and then cling onto it for dear life, not knowing they can actually swim (or perhaps they don't need to!). I don't consider myself an exception, except for the fact that knowing this, I constantly try to expose myself to information and experiences that do not correspond to what I currently believe. As the spanish mystic St John of the Cross wrote: To come to be what you are not, you must go by a way in which you are not. To come to know what you know not, you must go by a way in which you know not. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
DBCs now issued by DMT
Digital Monetary Trust now supports Digital Bearer Certificates. https://196.40.46.24/dmtext/jog/dmt_bearercert.htm Although the DBC are not blinded, DMT claims it maintains no client data on its accounts so there is a modicum of anonymity in transactions. steve A State must pay attention to virtue, because the law is a covenant or a guarantee of men's just claims, but it is not designed to make the citizens virtuous and just -- Aristotle
