War on humanity

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC2128.7926@armory.com...
-
There isn't any such thing. There are no such things as proof, because
proof is always TO SOMEONE, and their acceptance of it is required,
and they may wish to disingenuously deny that, however reasonable
it is.

Nope, you're merely lying and posturing wildly!

No, YOU are. There is no such thing as "proof" and I told you why
above. All you are is posturing disingenuously for effect.

No, because univerisities do NOT peer-review their staff websites.

You see, "websites" is NOT where reputability comes into science.

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself and need
"X-spurts" to do it for you? They're just other clowns like you!!

Pathetic.
------------

No, posturing one word responses are pathetic.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:16:36 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BBE7E9.6488@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 31 May 2004 04:01:05 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2004 06:00:10 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40B9794D.7562@armory.com>:

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim.
---------------
That's because I NEVER make claims that I NEED ANY argument for
OTHER than an OBVIOUS logical structural argument from the known,
and I do this IN ORDER to prevent morons like you from merely trying
to divert the argument by insipidly whining for "cites" when you
prove that you can't even THINK for yourself and that you have NO
deep reasons behind the shit in your head.

Trust me.
--------------------------
I don't need to trust a ninny who can't think logically.


When I have seen people ask your cites, it's because your
argument is NOT logical.
---------------------------
Nonsense. Alleged only by people with ulterior vicious political
and defective phiolosophical motives to lie. They KNOW they can't
out-reason me, and so they HAVE to resort to that.

One cannot outreason a printed propaganda pamphlet either.
-----------------
Of course they can, if it's wrong.


Like for exampe the Bible.
The Universe was created 5000 years ago in 5 days (IIRC, but likely not),
----------------------
Since everyone knows that mountains don't disappear or form in a few
days, that is obviously ridiculous. And since everyone knows no one
was actually around to see it, such an assertion as the bible is even
more ridiculous!! There are an enormous number of reasons why such a
book must be regarded as a fairy tale, if only because we have no good
reason to believe that any human now alive can be trusted to have
conveyed a supposed "true account" to the present without having been
tempted to screw with it along the way in order to deceive people to
acquire power and manipulate others.


and Waltz Communism is the only possible programming for billions of
neural networks each made of billons of neurons, some of these networks
having very different interests, so the WALTZ ONE FOR ALL solution always
works?
-------------------
Of course it does, they operate due to the same basic genome.
The differences between people are quite tiny, otherwise we
wouldn't even be able to communicate with each other.


Never mind, on to other things....
JP
-------------------------
People thinking they differ that much is merely erroneous, and any
such belief in such differences, other than the emotional disorders
caused by abuse and greed which must be eliminated, are simply
brainwashing.

We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years, and
evolved to live that way for far longer. We could not have defeated
predators and the elements with the weak body we have, compared to
the predators upon us, without an evolved ethic in our real human
nature of either of extreme group cooperation, or extinction as the
only alternatives.

Don't you think diversity has something to do with it?
In the same way our diversity in 'systems' may help us survive too.
-----------------
There's no conflict whatsoever between cooperation and diversity.
Diversity of ability benefits everyone in the group. Imagining that
diversity would have to invariably threaten the group is merely
stupid western capitalist delusion.


What makes you think YOU are not in the 'emotional disorder' category?
--------------------
How long a list do you want? That's a VERY open question. Start with,
"Gee, I don't FEEL sick or hurt anywhere.", and go from there. Or
you could re-read everything I've written for 12 years.


See, the way YOU see the world, is set by the filters in your brian (in neural
nets you say 'weights' perhaps), and may well not be what the world is really
like.
------------------------------------
Who cares? That could justify any sort of twistedness.
I only care about the world *I* live in.


For this same reason you cannot be 100% objective.
---------------------------
There is no such thing, because there's no such thing as an object.


Something may happen that makes you change your views, it already happened,
you were not born with these!
JP
------------------------------
Not precisely, but they fell out awfully quick compared to my present
age.

Anyway, to get anything done in life you have to play the ball
where it looks like it lies, and kill the people you believe are
evil. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, as long as you're honest
with yourself.

You can't wait to be perfected or totally sure you know, because
that never ever happens, and if it does it will always and quite
invariably be a huge surprise. And you can't wait to fight off
robbers, either, worrying you might be wrong about them, after all,
they didn't wait to find out if THEY were right! It's a matter of
existential exigency. Shoot them through the head and make every
effort to get away with it.
Well, the case if you are attacked, OK.

But your definition of 'robbers' as anyone not being a 'Waltz Commie'
would leave very few alive.
JP

 

[Dimitrij Klingbeil]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Do you have a reference to support that claim?
----------------------------
Plenty! But you can get your own.
So if you get tired of posturing you could go look it up.
But then you're WAAAAY too dishonest to go do THAT!

May or may not be true, I did noy check it. Your style however brings me to
the idea to look these proof techniques up on the internet

Proof techniques
----------------

Proof by example
The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it contains most of
the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation
``Trivial'' or ``obvious.''

Proof by exhaustion
An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by omission
``The reader may easily supply the details'', ``The other 253 cases are
analogous''

Proof by obfuscation
A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related
statements.

Proof by wishful citation
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem from
the literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding
How could three different government agencies be wrong? Or, to play the game
a different way: how could anything funded by those bozos be correct?

Proof by democracy
A lot of people believe it's true: how could they all be wrong?

Proof by market economics
Mine is the only theory on the market that will handle the data.

Proof by eminent authority
``I saw Ruzena in the elevator and she said that was tried in the 70's and
doesn't work."

Proof by cosmology
The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless. Popular for
proofs of the existence of God and for proofs that computers cannot think.

Proof by personal communication
``Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal
communication].''

Proof by reference to talk
``At the special NSA workshop on computer vision, Binford proved that SHGC's
could be recognized in polynomial time.''

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem
``To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we
reduce it to the halting problem.''

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature
The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately
circulated memoir of the Icelandic Philological Society, 1883. This works
even better if the paper has never been translated from the original
Icelandic.

Proof by ghost reference
Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference
given. Works well in combination with proof by reference to inaccessible
literature.

Proof by forward reference
Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often
not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by importance
A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
question.

Proof by accumulated evidence
Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by mutual reference
In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in reference B,
which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference C, which is an
easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference A.

Proof by metaproof
A method is given to construct the desired proof. The correctness of the
method is proved by any of these techniques. A strong background in
programming language semantics will help here.

Proof by picture
A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines well with proof by
omission.

Proof by flashy graphics
A moving sequence of shaded, 3D color models will convince anyone that your
object recognition algorithm works. An SGI workstation is helpful here.

Proof by misleading or uninterpretable graphs
Almost any curve can be made to look like the desired result by suitable
transformation of the variables and manipulation of the axis scales. Common
in experimental work.

Proof by vehement assertion
It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the audience, so
this is particularly useful in classroom settings.

Proof by repetition
Otherwise known as the Bellman's proof: ``What I say three times is true.''

Proof by appeal to intuition
Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.

Proof by vigorous handwaving
Works well in a classroom, seminar, or workshop setting.

Proof by semantic shift
Some of the standard but inconvenient definitions are changed for the
statement of the result.

Proof by cumbersome notation
Best done with access to at least four alphabets, special symbols, and the
newest release of LaTeX.

Proof by abstract nonsense
A version of proof by intimidation. The author uses terms or theorems from
advanced mathematics which look impressive but are only tangentially
related to the problem at hand. A few integrals here, a few exact sequences
there, and who will know if you really had a proof?

Disproof by finding a bad apple
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Among the many proponents of this
theory, we have found one who is obviously loony; so we can discredit the
entire theory. (Often used in political contexts.)

Disproof by slippery slope (or thin end of wedge, if you are British)
If we accepted [original proposal], we'd have to accept [slightly modified
proposal], and eventually this would lead to [radically different and
clearly objectionable proposal].

Disproof by ``not invented here''
We have years of experience with this equipment at MIT and we have never
observed that effect.

--------------------------
taken from http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~fleck see "Proof techniques"