Hi everyone,

In a previous post...

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dR0giTrOjJo

....I discussed a descriptive complexity approach to showing that the 14th amendment is enforceable. One might wonder: What do you do when addressing a situation where the rule of law cannot reach? E.g., if a hostage has been taken, property has been stolen, or fully legal or legally unchallengeable action has been taken, what can one do to pursue one's interests in response?

Like in my previous post, it is possible to model the situation with simple logic tools:

- A domain D of constant symbols corresponding to sets, where any set can be people, organizations, or valuable objects.
- R1(x) -- is x a person?
- R2(x) -- is x an organization?
- R3(x) -- is x a valuable object?
- R4(x,y) -- does x contain or possess y as an element properly?
- R5(x,y) -- does x contain or possess y as an element improperly--e.g., based on stealing or hostage taking?
- R6(x) -- is x a "sender" of a logically expressed message, threat, offer, or declaration of intent to one or more "receivers?"
- R7(x) -- is x a "receiver" of a logically expressed message, threat, offer, or declaration of intent from one or more "senders?"
- R8(x) -- is x OPEN to a particular logically expressed message, from any sender?

The interesting comment that can be made about this vocabulary is that given any structure and an FO query using this vocabulary that represents a tautology--i.e., the FO query is logically true and thus true for every structure (such queries can use both universal and existential quantifiers)--we know that any such tautological query will definitely be true for all structures.

In this case, the queries represent "good signals" that could be sent from one party in any structure to another party in the structure, and all parties in receipt of the query would be able to tell that it's true quite quickly, assuming that the queries aren't excessively long (testing TQBF queries for being "tautologies" in the sense that such queries are always true is possible in PSPACE, so short enough queries should be testable within a reasonable amount of time--restriction to universal quantifiers only could be used to reduce the complexity to coNP).

One exciting thing about this fairly simple idea is that it could, in theory, be used to help ethical computer programming firms make a big, positive difference in the world while also causing other relevant entities to have to be RATIONAL, and thus very likely fair-minded and law-abiding. In particular, given that I myself have just published this algorithm for free on the internet while unemployed, I assert that hiring me as a computer programmer would free up this idea to be used by any CS firm without moral reservation--it would be perfectly fair and above all rational for CS firms to use this idea to get ahead if I were employed.

The greatest thing overall, though, is that if I were hired, this idea could be used to drastically reduce improper corporate behavior that is irrational, and even to fight crimes to include abuse, rape, theft, and human trafficking. Negotiations with parties that might want to use "devastating and irrationally cruel threats" to get their respective ways would find this to be very difficult in a world where tools to enforce logical (and therefore moral) rationality such as this one could be used without moral reservation.

Please let me know what you think about this idea, and if you'd like to hire me! I have many more great ideas that, in contrast to this one, are very valuable and not just intended to mainly serve my own interests while influencing the world into becoming a better place.

It would very excellent if a smart CS firm would figure out a way to hire me before New Year's Eve this year--I would be grateful and happy for such a job offer at this time!

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)