On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:33:34 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 5:23 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >> On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >>>>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> >>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> >>>>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> >>>>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> >>>>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> >>>>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> >>>>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> >>>>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
> >>>> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
> >>>> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
> >>>> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
> >>>>
> >>>> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
> >>>> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
> >>>> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
> >>>> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
> >>>>
> >>>> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
> >>>> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
> >>>> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
> >>>> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
> >>>> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
> >>>> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
> >>>>
> >>>> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
> >>>> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
> >>>> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
> >>>> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
> >>>> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
> >>>> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
> >>>>
> >>>> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
> >>>> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
> >>>> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
> >>>> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
> >>>> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
> >>>> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
> >>>> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
> >>>> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
> >>>> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
> >>>> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
> >>>> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
> >>>> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
> >>>> to a distant ideal target."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
> >>>> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
> >>>> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
> >>>> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
> >>>> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
> >>>> no, I just invented that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
> >>>> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
> >>>> In theory ....
> >>>>
> >>>> (For we are men.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
> >>> thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
> >>>
> >>> Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
> >>> kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
> >>> some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
> >>> it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
> >>> sci.math, thank you.
> >>>
> >>> Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
> >>> of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
> >>> according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
> >>> range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
> >>> So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
> >>> 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
> >>> the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
> >>>
> >>> I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
> >>> as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
> >>> am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
> >>>
> >>> And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
> >>> program brains.
> >>>
> >>> As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
> >>> give it a brain and fill it up.
> >>>
> >>> Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
> >>> the giant, large, simple brains.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
> >>> mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
> >>> expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
> >>> writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
> >>> in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
> >>> and "development of A-Theory".)
> >>>
> >>> I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
> >>>
> >>> Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
> >>> but I can put them down.
> >>>
> >>> Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
> >>> or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
> >>> for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
> >>> and how there's one unique function counterexample to
> >>> them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
> >>> the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
> >>> Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
> >>> a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
> >>> that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
> >>>
> >>> See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
> >>> me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
> >>> pick up the slates.
> >>>
> >>> Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
> >>> or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
> >>> burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
> >>> anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
> >>> slates, that results I have those up together.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are already of course all matters of countable character,
> >>> constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
> >>> are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
> >>> domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
> >>> usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
> >>>
> >>> Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
> >>> that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
> >>> to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
> >>> look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
> >>> Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
> >>> against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
> >>> able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
> >>> time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
> >>> his word, and me to keep mine.
> >>>
> >>> Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
> >>> post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
> >>> always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
> >>> since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
> >>>
> >>> So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
> >>> all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
> >>> modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
> >>> That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
> >>> about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
> >>> modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
> >>> be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
> >>>
> >>> Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
> >>>
> >>> Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
> >>>
> >>> There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
> >>> this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
> >>> everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
> >>>
> >>> So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
> >>> for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
> >>> after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
> >>> to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
> >>> all logical paradox, that there is one.
> >>>
> >>> It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
> >>> there's only one and that's the way it is.
> >>>
> >>> Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
> >>> point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
> >>> area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
> >>> Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
> >>> out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
> >>> Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
> >>>
> >> yea, that's bratworst.
> >
> > I enjoy it.
> >
> > The brat or brot worst or wurst, Polish, frankfurters and hot dogs,
> > cured salami, sausage is meat and suet, often spices or fermented.
> >
> > Wurst, Polish sausage, pork usually, the other white meat....
> >
> > I think we can agree that fennel is perhaps a great ingredient for sausage,
> > though my diet now of sausage is reduced to quarterly gut-bombs,
> > it is certain there was a time when sausage sustained me.
> >
> > And bread!
> >
> Summertime, Munich train station, => Bratworst mit sauerkraut, schupfnudeln und Paulaner Salvator beer !!

On 1/20/2022 12:24 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:33:34 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>> On 1/19/2022 5:23 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
>>>>>>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
>>>>>>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
>>>>>>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
>>>>>>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
>>>>>>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
>>>>>>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
>>>>>> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
>>>>>> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
>>>>>> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
>>>>>> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
>>>>>> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
>>>>>> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
>>>>>> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
>>>>>> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
>>>>>> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
>>>>>> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
>>>>>> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
>>>>>> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
>>>>>> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
>>>>>> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
>>>>>> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
>>>>>> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
>>>>>> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
>>>>>> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
>>>>>> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
>>>>>> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
>>>>>> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
>>>>>> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
>>>>>> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
>>>>>> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
>>>>>> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
>>>>>> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
>>>>>> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
>>>>>> to a distant ideal target."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
>>>>>> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
>>>>>> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
>>>>>> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
>>>>>> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
>>>>>> no, I just invented that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
>>>>>> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
>>>>>> In theory ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (For we are men.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
>>>>> thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
>>>>> kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
>>>>> some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
>>>>> it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
>>>>> sci.math, thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
>>>>> of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
>>>>> according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
>>>>> range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
>>>>> So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
>>>>> 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
>>>>> the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
>>>>> as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
>>>>> am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
>>>>> program brains.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
>>>>> give it a brain and fill it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
>>>>> the giant, large, simple brains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
>>>>> mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
>>>>> expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
>>>>> writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
>>>>> in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
>>>>> and "development of A-Theory".)
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
>>>>> but I can put them down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
>>>>> or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
>>>>> for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
>>>>> and how there's one unique function counterexample to
>>>>> them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
>>>>> the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
>>>>> Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
>>>>> a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
>>>>> that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>> See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
>>>>> me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
>>>>> pick up the slates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
>>>>> or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
>>>>> burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
>>>>> anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
>>>>> slates, that results I have those up together.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are already of course all matters of countable character,
>>>>> constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
>>>>> are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
>>>>> domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
>>>>> usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
>>>>> that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
>>>>> to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
>>>>> look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
>>>>> Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
>>>>> against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
>>>>> able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
>>>>> time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
>>>>> his word, and me to keep mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
>>>>> post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
>>>>> always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
>>>>> since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
>>>>> all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
>>>>> modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
>>>>> That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
>>>>> about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
>>>>> modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
>>>>> be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
>>>>> this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
>>>>> everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
>>>>>
>>>>> So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
>>>>> for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
>>>>> after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
>>>>> to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
>>>>> all logical paradox, that there is one.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
>>>>> there's only one and that's the way it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
>>>>> point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
>>>>> area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
>>>>> Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
>>>>> out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
>>>>> Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
>>>>>
>>>> yea, that's bratworst.
>>>
>>> I enjoy it.
>>>
>>> The brat or brot worst or wurst, Polish, frankfurters and hot dogs,
>>> cured salami, sausage is meat and suet, often spices or fermented.
>>>
>>> Wurst, Polish sausage, pork usually, the other white meat....
>>>
>>> I think we can agree that fennel is perhaps a great ingredient for sausage,
>>> though my diet now of sausage is reduced to quarterly gut-bombs,
>>> it is certain there was a time when sausage sustained me.
>>>
>>> And bread!
>>>
>> Summertime, Munich train station, => Bratworst mit sauerkraut, schupfnudeln und Paulaner Salvator beer !!
>
>
> Since type theory is for Russell in types,
> then for Russell in atoms, is for elements.
> Elements and types, make sense usual universals.
>
> (In set theory, ....)
>

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> On 1/20/2022 12:24 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:33:34 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >> On 1/19/2022 5:23 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:07:29 AM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >>>> On 1/19/2022 4:01 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:59:12 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 7:14:35 PM UTC-8, sergio wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 1/18/2022 8:42 PM, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> You should care because Poincare the intuitionist basically axiomatizes
> >>>>>>>>> iteration, like set theory essentially sees as an inductive set, and, also
> >>>>>>>>> infinitesimals, that have standard character. So, for some that's more
> >>>>>>>>> and better, because it reflects their matching intuitions about the
> >>>>>>>>> character of mathematical objects, that exist, while for others, it's
> >>>>>>>>> more and worse, those don't neatly coexist, and it take something like
> >>>>>>>>> my slates on uncountability and paradox to resolve them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That's why you should care, though, not why you should not care.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ross, what random text generator software are you using, seriously?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is quite good too, but too many disparate subjects gives it away, like sausage.
> >>>>>> Let us consult the history of science and theory about monkeys
> >>>>>> what type Shakespeare, as that Shakespeare is well-regarded and
> >>>>>> in this sense there are monkeys that will type it for work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You'll notice I simply monopolized this forum and left it well enough
> >>>>>> alone, as simply replying on-topic usually (to the end). I think that
> >>>>>> now that you all will end up reading your posts and all of a sudden,
> >>>>>> usually, finding that I have written a note to your future self.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I.e. it would be a pleasant surprise to find usually writing that is
> >>>>>> both, a) explaining differences, and b) broadsides.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know about Shakespeare but Monkeys will read _anything_.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Basically as the model of monkeys is people, is that after the
> >>>>>> one monkey who knows Shakespeare and reads everything,
> >>>>>> then is for getting the presses rolling, basically for what is
> >>>>>> going monkey-typewriter work, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's agree that there are Joyce Monkeys, there are monkeys of all sorts,
> >>>>>> and 1 Shakespeare is the largest unit in the English language system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One monkey-typewriter-hour: defines 1 Shakespeare: 25,000 different words.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Learning words is probably best spelling bee practice, I knew most words
> >>>>>> by the time I was 12. Thus, effectively I am a monkey.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now then, let's make the model of monkeys, to a parable of probability.
> >>>>>> Shakespeare types 25,000 _different_ words. Now, there isn't an expectation
> >>>>>> that a monkey would ever type _exactly_ Shakespeare, but, according to
> >>>>>> the probability of writing 25,000 different words being much, much greater
> >>>>>> than channeling Shakespeare, those words would fill the same the space.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program
> >>>>>> produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL,
> >>>>>> starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent
> >>>>>> generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny
> >>>>>> that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance
> >>>>>> of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small,
> >>>>>> yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about
> >>>>>> 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random
> >>>>>> choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts
> >>>>>> information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel
> >>>>>> program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring"
> >>>>>> phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance
> >>>>>> to a distant ideal target."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now, here I think you can agree just like you might figure I would
> >>>>>> later plan to interpret the same and agree, here about what results
> >>>>>> to basically write enough like Shakespeare to make a Joyce.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reading this as "is there a salt to some standard conversation schema
> >>>>>> that would usually result a talking philosopher, this inspiration of what
> >>>>>> results then that accordingly it's readable to understand its source",
> >>>>>> no, I just invented that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now then, will you agree, that, with respect to foundations and
> >>>>>> what text I generate, it is as a typewriter monkey with 25,000 words.
> >>>>>> In theory ....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (For we are men.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, while my brain was giant and naive, I Shakespeare'd this typewriter,
> >>>>> thus that when I'm a Joyce I can monkey brain reading it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then, all those notes to my future self, I'm sure he was right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess one thing don't understand about cranks, is, there are two
> >>>>> kinds of cranks: trolls and cranks. I feel bad for people thinking that
> >>>>> some crank or troll was just not getting answers - I hope so though
> >>>>> it's clear - Archimedes Plutonium is the crank saint and troll king of
> >>>>> sci.math, thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Imagine if you will, that Archimedes Plutonium is actually along the lines
> >>>>> of a mechanized reasoning machine or lack thereof. It's a program that
> >>>>> according to what it establishes as "ideas" or statements, is given enough
> >>>>> range and concerns as what results its surfaces, are as of analytic geometry.
> >>>>> So, we have one of these on sci.math. Now, imagine another one, about
> >>>>> 1000 times deeper, if, the same, basic organization, Archimedes Plutonium
> >>>>> the journal writer, in analytic geometry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I.e. as a meat machine it's much easier for me to keep track of all a foundations
> >>>>> as a most simple direct and fundamental thing - while as a meat machine I
> >>>>> am somewhat not organized the same as a giant silicon brain net.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And it's already a long time ago as with regards to significant and large
> >>>>> program brains.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you can see if I plan to keep this up by now I'd be figuring to
> >>>>> give it a brain and fill it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyways, I think there will be a resurgence in brains, and simple brains.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regular foundations is of course most directly implemented in
> >>>>> the giant, large, simple brains.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, if you'll excuse me, I mostly write points of fact that reflect
> >>>>> mostly that I'm interested in continuum mechanics, as what I'd
> >>>>> expect that a mechanical reader can easily enjoy. (From that
> >>>>> writing is a linear narrative, I have taken advantage of that
> >>>>> in extended linear narrative, which is "development of a theory",
> >>>>> and "development of A-Theory".)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I.e. this way I see it as much work as play - free work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyways now I have these slates of uncountability and paradox,
> >>>>> but I can put them down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Picking them back up again - it's not like 10 Commandments
> >>>>> or it is - Moses and the Ten Commandments, instead is that
> >>>>> for uncountability it is each of the proofs of uncountability,
> >>>>> and how there's one unique function counterexample to
> >>>>> them in function theory, the uncountability slate. Then,
> >>>>> the paradox slate, is each of the logical paradoxes like
> >>>>> Russell and ..., are resolved in universal and void, with
> >>>>> a theory of "ubiquitous ordinals" a set theory, and otherwise
> >>>>> that the other slate is for resolving logical paradox.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See, that is trolling, though, in the sense, that, besides Sergio
> >>>>> me telling you, it's only good as with the power of the mind,
> >>>>> pick up the slates.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not to say I want to carry around Ten Commandments like Moses,
> >>>>> or what all run screaming from the burning bush "G-d is in the
> >>>>> burning bush then later he gave me these Ten Commandments",
> >>>>> anyways those I found, these great uncountability and paradox
> >>>>> slates, that results I have those up together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suppose there wasn't one of these when I wrote one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are already of course all matters of countable character,
> >>>>> constructively, and resolution via logic, constructively, these
> >>>>> are the slates that resolve countable character with uncountable
> >>>>> domains, and paradoxes in logic after regular objects. I.e. the
> >>>>> usual approach before is "impossible because mathematical paradox".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See, that is trolling, and, reaching past sincere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyways, to wrap up "I told you so, Poincare : 2022", here is
> >>>>> that indeed, it's been a very long time since I added anything
> >>>>> to A-Theory, though that it is the same theory, that we can
> >>>>> look to for example that it's a narrative, just pointing out that
> >>>>> Virgil, thank him, had the last word, about mathematics and
> >>>>> against cranks, or trolls. There came a point when Virgil, was
> >>>>> able to leave the last word, not wrong, until there came the
> >>>>> time when he let me have the last word. He agreed to keep
> >>>>> his word, and me to keep mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now, not everyone would notice that, some usual long 8000
> >>>>> post thread of Prof.Dr. so-and-so and Emeritus Don crackety-quack,
> >>>>> always at brickbats with each other, two men at peace with their words,
> >>>>> since then was from bright-eyed certainty to steely comfort.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, when it comes around that in the course of continuum mechanics
> >>>>> all sorts of what are usual distinctions start to make sense, including
> >>>>> modern mathematics _and_ "open set theory", mostly a) a troll.
> >>>>> That is to say: if you read and understand as I do, that "ok since
> >>>>> about 15 years ago it is basically formalized an entire theory past
> >>>>> modern mathematics, with most all its goals", then I hope it would
> >>>>> be useful to you what results explaining mathematics, personally.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because as far as I know it's a direct claim on a philosophy of science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is a pragmatic thing to have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are others - usual philosophies of science - and the usual one -
> >>>>> this philosophy includes again, there's no point having a "theory of
> >>>>> everything" that isn't "The, theory of everything".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, pretty much after all regular theory where has been formalized
> >>>>> for the regular open topology and the complete ordered field measure
> >>>>> after LUB and 1.0, and, all regular theory runs out past completeness
> >>>>> to incompleteness, in words, the theory of everything basically resolves
> >>>>> all logical paradox, that there is one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's sad there's only one but that's the way it is. Then it's not sad
> >>>>> there's only one and that's the way it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyways now that Virgil and I have had our say, basically my
> >>>>> point is there is a theory where Fred Jeffries establishes the
> >>>>> area of a triangle, that the theory of all things does also.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think that Poincare, channeled today, i.e. 130 years later, after the
> >>>>> Hilbert Program, after Langlands, after Bourbaki, after ZFC, after Goedel,
> >>>>> out through descriptive set theory for topology, category theory,
> >>>>> Mizar and Metamath and so on, would have that it's exactly the same.
> >>>>>
> >>>> yea, that's bratworst.
> >>>
> >>> I enjoy it.
> >>>
> >>> The brat or brot worst or wurst, Polish, frankfurters and hot dogs,
> >>> cured salami, sausage is meat and suet, often spices or fermented.
> >>>
> >>> Wurst, Polish sausage, pork usually, the other white meat....
> >>>
> >>> I think we can agree that fennel is perhaps a great ingredient for sausage,
> >>> though my diet now of sausage is reduced to quarterly gut-bombs,
> >>> it is certain there was a time when sausage sustained me.
> >>>
> >>> And bread!
> >>>
> >> Summertime, Munich train station, => Bratworst mit sauerkraut, schupfnudeln und Paulaner Salvator beer !!
> >
> >
> > Since type theory is for Russell in types,
> > then for Russell in atoms, is for elements.
> > Elements and types, make sense usual universals.
> >
> > (In set theory, ....)
> >
> yes, various types of Bratworst, in rows at the cart, they come in Sets there
>
> sauerkraut is a universe in itself, elements of sauerkraut, types of sauerkraut, Russell of sauerkraut, sauerkraut Atoms, sauerkraut future vision