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!