Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.logic > #341866 > unrolled thread

Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier)

Back to article view | Back to sci.logic

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:50 +0100
    2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:51 +0100
      Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 22:52 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:56 +0100
        Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations (Re: Clueless Moron and Paid Putin Troll) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:58 +0100
          What does Type Free mean? (Re: 2.1 Logical variables and equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-06 23:59 +0100
    A noiseless patient Spider is a Pussy Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-07 00:03 +0100
    Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World] (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 00:40 +0200
      Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI) (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:14 +0200
        This could be a serious security vulnerability (Re: Testing NVIDIA A10G / XVM Engine v10.2.4 (Permion Federal AI)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 02:37 +0200
          Logtalk big time salami slicing [For "Whales" (ultra-high rollers)?] (Re: This could be a serious security vulnerability) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-29 11:21 +0200
            Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:28 +0200
              Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:29 +0200
                Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon (Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 11:40 +0200
                  Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 02:06 +0200
                    Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...] (Re: Homework: Game Engine in WebGPU) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:17 +0200
                      But how can you deploy, when its ROM? (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 18:21 +0200
                      New addition to π-WAM is π-WAM Assembly (Re: Johnny Depp prevention [Windows 11 etc...]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 19:46 +0200
                  The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous (Was: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-25 19:10 +0200
                    Estimating P(doom E-graphs) to < 10% (Was: The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-28 14:13 +0200
                  Nosomatic AI Chirurgeon: RSI of Use/Mention? (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-24 12:55 +0200
                Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-07-27 08:07 -0600
              Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:08 +0200
                NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:33 +0200
                  Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-27 17:38 +0200
                Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 18:55 -0700
              Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-02 18:38 +0200
              Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-02 18:39 +0200
                So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML] (Was: Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-03 01:37 +0200
                  Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later] (Re: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-08 13:11 +0200
                    Play Snaky, who did it better OpenAI or Anthropic? (Re: Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-08 23:36 +0200
                      Re: Play Snaky, who did it better OpenAI or Anthropic? (Re: Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-08 23:37 +0200
                  Lean 4: That golden era of logic is gone (Was: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
                  Math AI Vegans hate the Druids Cauldron [MakazhanAlpamys / Soup] (Re: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-11-11 00:17 +0100
                An elementary proof or pi irrationality = 2 [Natural Intelligence] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-09 19:39 +0200
                  Cont. Now with Integers (Was: An elementary proof or pi irrationality = 2 [Natural Intelligence]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-09 20:22 +0200
                    Superintelligenz ist auch F.U.D. (OAI:The-irrationality-exponent-of-pi-is-2-September-24-2026) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-10 00:34 +0200
                      Time got dilated by Gemini & Deepseek [The new Shalosh B. Ekhad] (Was: Superintelligenz ist auch F.U.D. ) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-10 13:00 +0200
              Avoiding logical strength in real analysis [Lattice Games] (Was: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-10-15 17:35 +0200
      format/3 that does not have some Spaghetti logic (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-04-30 17:50 +0200
      Ljubljana School versus Zurich School (Re: Prolog PIP-0110: Its a Floating-Point Multiverse? [Stoic Grisu versus Rest of World] (Re: Arrow Functions can do Existential Quantifier) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 20:16 +0200
        Big thanks to Ljubljana School [Searching 0xCAFFEE] (Re: Ljubljana School versus Zurich School) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-03 20:42 +0200
        Peking School versus Ljubljana School [Everything Is a Plugin] (Re: Ljubljana School versus Zurich School) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-21 17:44 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#348594 — Estimating P(doom E-graphs) to < 10% (Was: The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous)

Hi,

Yesterday I had the feeling P(doom E-graphs) > 10%,
since they have E-boost intiatives where they use
parallism and more heuristics, also tapping into GPUs,

TPUs, NPUs, etc.. you name it. So Prolog might sooner
or later feel the wind of E-boost Schinkansen? Now
I have the feeling the E-graph community is still

in the nowhere of la la land. Reading:

recording out of egraphs
https://www.philipzucker.com/

WTF is "recording out" ? Look at that beauty of
SWI-Prolog unifiable/3 predicate. It can even deal
with cyclic terms:

?- unifiable(f(X,X,X),f(Z,b,Y), L).
L = [Y=b, X=b, Z=X].

?- unifiable(f(X,Y),f(f(A,Y),f(B,X)), L).
L = [Y=f(B, X), X=f(A, Y)].

You can even code unifiable/3 in 100% Prolog itself,
BTW I am not saying it would be pure. But it wont need
any extensions that go beyond ISO core standard.

You could even experiment with a unification that
does minimization (*), but most Prolog systems don't
do that for their unification:

?- unifiable(X, f(f(X)), L).
L = [X=f(f(X))].

Bye

(*)
Gerhard Huet was all in for minimizations, but the sad
news is while terms have minimal forms, equations don't
really have unique minimal forms, this transpired only later.

RESOLUTION D'EQUATIONS DANS DES LANGAGES D'ORDRE 1,2,.••,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/213879499

Algorithms for equivalence and reduction to minimal form
https://hal.science/hal-01239749v1/document

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Non-uniform memory access (NUMA) is a computer
> memory design used in multiprocessing, where the
> memory access time depends on the memory location
> relative to the processor.
> 
> The future Numa Brains will be gorgeous. In like
> 3-4 years from now, they might have 3.2 TB RAM
> on a SOC, by not using HBM but HBF:
> 
> High Bandwidth Flash: What Is It Good For?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTpW52nioI
> 
> There might be new profession like nosomatic
> AI chirurgeon (I made that up):
> 
> Tiny engine, immense model
> https://github.com/JustVugg/colibri
> 
> The Brain page, Explore: the measured expert
> atlas of GLM-5.2 drawn as a cortex. 13,260
> characterised experts in ten regions (Python,
> SQL, mathematics, poetry, law, Chinese…);
> 
> position is measured routing affinity, not a
> learned embedding. We might want a brain to
> amputate from the Python expert sections, so
> 
> that we can write code without a slow
> CPython runtime.
> 
> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349051 — Nosomatic AI Chirurgeon: RSI of Use/Mention? (Re: Train yourself to become a nosomatic AI chirurgeon)

Hi,

Looks like we are in the mists of
Recursive self-improvement (RSI).
While my Prolog mini Prover9 and mini

Mace4, can solve all the Terrence Tao
EQT examples in a blink. This guy
is already a step further:

MENTION.md — the mention-algebra experiment
https://github.com/stefanopalmieri/finite-magma-independence/blob/main/MENTION.md

Re-inventing some of the marvels
of Post Schönfinkel aera in combinatory
logic, but with neural networks?

Do people in Texas have too
much GPU compute?

Bye

P.S.: From now on I take magma A*B
as application (A B) like in SKI combinatory
logic. In as far, its  always fun to add

some more exotic combinators.

LoL

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> A nosomatic AI chirurgeon is a halfling student
> of sickness, and a master of the ebb and flow of
> the energies of life and death of data packets.
> 
> He is a air bender, water bender and earth bender
> in one person, using OpenVINO to juggle with
> CPU, GPU and NPU.
> 
> Last but not least he can freely switch between
> symbolic and neural representation of knowledge
> forms, there is no abyss for him.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The nature of time has puzzled people -- from the ancient
>> Greeks to the present day -- Especially the nosomatic
>> perception of time is a hot topic now.
>>
>> How does time evolve inside a GPU with multiple units
>> or a CPU with multiple cores. GPUs even having multiple
>> logical threads inside a group.
>>
>> Forget the von Neumann model of computing. You need
>> a total new thinking of shared memory and more
>> message passing, and have a grip of vector and
>>
>> matrix tiling of problems. π-WAM already deploys
>> logic tiling in its Seven Eleven demonstrator. So forget
>> everything you have learned in your BASIC computer
>>
>> course for your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>>
>>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define 
>>> "measurement of
>>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>>  >
>>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval 
>>> observatory
>>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>>  >
>>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>>  > measuring time.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>>
>>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>>
>>>> Version release notes
>>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348253 — Re: Forget your Sputnik Commodore C64 with 8088 [Logic Tiling] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The nature of time has puzzled people -- from the ancient
> Greeks to the present day -- Especially the nosomatic
> perception of time is a hot topic now.

But here you are to explain it all. It's easy for you because with your 
Creationist fantasies the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It's the height 
of foolishness, but you guys profess it because I guess it's not a 
simple matter to demonstrate the geological core that clearly indicates 
billions of years. You can hand wave that away and point at the Ming 
Dynasty as the first men walking the Earth. How simple time is for you. 
Simple, but entirely mistaken and false.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348256 — Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

Hi,

You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
archecture. You claim to like in the
sense of "That's a good quote" some

completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
to do with "time" per se:

CLARREO Pathfinder
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/

Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
reflected by the Earth and the Moon.

You are just a moron, that still feels harware
evelution a treat, but would like to see data
from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this

is not the ultimate tech cult?

As always you suck, like nobody else ever
sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes

Plutonion and John Gabriel.

Bye

Ross Finlayson schrieb:
> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
> by at least two different clocks -
> might as well be three.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
> reached a significant milestone this summer.
> 
> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  >
>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>  >
>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>  >
>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>  > measuring time.
>  >
>  >
>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>  >
>  >
>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>  >
>  >
>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>
>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>
>> Version release notes
>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>
>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>
>>>> Expected result:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>
>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348258 — NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values [Earth and Star Gazers] (Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense?)

Hi

BTW, NVIDIA had a GPU card named Einstein and
an Einstein project. I guess these earth
and star gazers would like to number crunch

images with Q8.24 RGB values. Now Einstein
name was adopted for another GPU Project:

We had a number of tutorials on CarpetX
and science codes based on CarpetX, the new,
GPU-enabled version of the Einstein Toolkit.
https://einsteintoolkit.org/

The results show excellent agreement with
the well-established LazEv code. Scaling
tests on CPU (Frontera) and GPU (Vista)
clusters reveal significant performance

gains, with the new implementation achieving
improved speed and scalability compared
to the Carpet-based version.
GPU-accelerated Subcycling Time
Integration with the Einstein Toolkit
https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09629

GPUs were traditionally used by earth and
star gazers early on, because they can
speed up the scanning of large areas,

also in 4 dimensions, i.e. space and time.

Have Fun!

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
> 
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
> 
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
> 
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
> 
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
> 
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
> 
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
> 
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348259 — Just lookup orbital AI and SpaceX (Re: NVIDIA Einstein and Q8.24 RGB Values)

Hi,

"Space-based data centers or orbital AI
infrastructure are proposed concepts to
build AI data centers in the sun-synchronous
orbit or other orbits using space-
based solar power.

Space-based edge computing has historical
roots in military architectures designed
to bypass the latency of ground-based
targeting networks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_data_center

Just to give you an idea. Translated to
the Einstein pathfinders. If the sensors
are in space, why not do the bulk processing

already in space?

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi
> 
> BTW, NVIDIA had a GPU card named Einstein and
> an Einstein project. I guess these earth
> and star gazers would like to number crunch
> 
> images with Q8.24 RGB values. Now Einstein
> name was adopted for another GPU Project:
> 
> We had a number of tutorials on CarpetX
> and science codes based on CarpetX, the new,
> GPU-enabled version of the Einstein Toolkit.
> https://einsteintoolkit.org/
> 
> The results show excellent agreement with
> the well-established LazEv code. Scaling
> tests on CPU (Frontera) and GPU (Vista)
> clusters reveal significant performance
> 
> gains, with the new implementation achieving
> improved speed and scalability compared
> to the Carpet-based version.
> GPU-accelerated Subcycling Time
> Integration with the Einstein Toolkit
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09629
> 
> GPUs were traditionally used by earth and
> star gazers early on, because they can
> speed up the scanning of large areas,
> 
> also in 4 dimensions, i.e. space and time.
> 
> Have Fun!
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
>> archecture. You claim to like in the
>> sense of "That's a good quote" some
>>
>> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
>> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
>> to do with "time" per se:
>>
>> CLARREO Pathfinder
>> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
>>
>> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
>> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
>> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
>>
>> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
>> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
>> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
>>
>> is not the ultimate tech cult?
>>
>> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
>> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
>> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
>>
>> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
>>
>> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348266 — Re: Brova you enjoy made up nonsense? [Einstein tech cult] (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration (Re: Logtalk big time salami slicing)

On 07/27/2026 08:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You refuse to undertand the NVIDIA Volta
> archecture. You claim to like in the
> sense of "That's a good quote" some
>
> completely made up nonsense? Bravo! I just
> copied a nasa article title, which had nothing
> to do with "time" per se:
>
> CLARREO Pathfinder
> https://science.nasa.gov/mission/clarreo-pathfinder/
>
> Its more a very big vacuum cleaner, that can
> scan highly accurate measurements of sunlight
> reflected by the Earth and the Moon.
>
> You are just a moron, that still feels harware
> evelution a treat, but would like to see data
> from a Einstein pathfinder. As if this
>
> is not the ultimate tech cult?
>
> As always you suck, like nobody else ever
> sucked on the usenet. You are just completely
> bonkers, the bigger crank than Archimedes
>
> Plutonion and John Gabriel.
>
> Bye
>
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>> Well, like Einstein says, relativity is defined
>> by at least two different clocks -
>> might as well be three.
>>
>>
>>
>> That's a good quote, I quote me on that.
>
>
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

That addled nincompoop, it cut the original context.
That's misrepresentation for you:  making idiots worse.



Perhaps one of the best references for Einstein's theory of relativity
is Einstein's "Out of My Later Years", though it's a bit biographical in
the beginning and end, the middle sees laid out very specifically
what Einstein says is "relativity theory" ("a simple negative
stipulation").

The space contraction comes first from FitzGerald, decades before
Lorentz, and various accounts of Lorentzians, any account of which
models "relativity theory", make for real space contraction, in GR,
then Einstein for example separates the "spatial" and "spacial" of
"GR" and "SR".

Einstein also takes pains to clarify that "SR is local", then as with
regards to a clock hypothesis _and_ a universal clock hypothesis,
you can read Einstein explaining why it's so.


Here there are quite a variety of Lorentzians, about things like
Levi-Civita's "the indefiniteness of ds^2".

The plain pure SR-ians are partial, incomplete, and merely local.



Much like "meeting the Lorentzian" makes for a model of
relativity theory, "meeting the Schreodingerian" makes
for models of quantum mechanics.

So, a "doubly-objective relativity theory" may have
both relativity of motion and aside relativity of
space, so that once again there's an aether theory
in it, for example about how in "Sidelights on Relativity",
that Einstein makes accords for an aether in the theory.

Similarly for Born's infinite self-energy and Feynman's
renormalizibility of theories, after Reichenbach about
"Schroedingerians", the quantum mechanics can be a
continuous, deterministic quantum mechanics.

Then a "clock hypothesis" which is usually for anyone
a "universal clock hypothesis" and not the apologet-a-lit's
"not-a-clock-hypothesis-hypothesis" is a usual idea, that
in general relativity usually keeps the geodesy (or other
accounts of the world-lines) current everywhere constantly,
or establishes all matters of time-dependence and time-ordering
in any account of quantum theory.


A) The geodesy's instantaneously evaluated everywhere over everywhere
all the time.

B) The time-ordering and time-dependence defines the action of QM.



>

By the time orthogonality, unitarity, _and_ complementarity get
satisfied, a universal "time" is always about the most moderating
influence.


About the charge-parity-time symmetries, charge symmetry and
parity symmetry have been broken, yet time symmetry has _never_
been falsified: making of itself that as a large overall experiment its
data supporting a "universal clock hypothesis".

Lagrangians are universally parameterized by _time_,
and, force the usual account as a vector is
always itself a function of _time_. (Instead of a tensor, ....)


Then, Einstein could be read as "you know, sometimes people read
too much into what I say, ...", then also "well, you know, Einstein's
relativity theory that's Newtonian in the limit is very good at that,
not saying much, actually I have a bit of a problem with the Newtonian
and by that I mean the Galilean, so, here's a reasoning why the
space-contraction if it would be would vary for space-contraction-linear
and space-contraction-rotational, and about classical mechanics
itself before we get to the Mach-ian and a total field theory since
there's always an extra-local aspect to any field theory, which physics is".





Now I notice that some recent literature has been absconding with
the term "time-dependence" after "time-ordering", this is that
various accounts of causality and quantum causality which Reichenbach
says that Schroedingerians (as systems) as they would be have only
one job about "quantum causality", that in the recent literature
there are accounts of

A) "clock hypothesis" that's _not_ a clock hypothesis
B) "time-dependence" that's _not_ time-dependence

and other usual accounts since "negative time" (that's since
time-symmetry has never been falsified, has always been falsified,
as about "there are no closed finite time-like curves"),
that those are considered incompatible with the rest of
the literature.

So, those modern accounts worming around matters of definition
are as of a Babel-style babble their abuses of language.


Then about notions like "A-Theory" and "B-Theory" of time, ...,
here there's a universal clock hypothesis and clocks either
slow or meet, so there's never "negative time", and then
that in a convolutive sort of framework, for complementarity,
the stacks of derivation are re-visitable. (Then here there's
that "The A-Theory" as an axiomless then formal system with principles
of the Inverse and Thorough Reason" is so named a decade or more
before these other "A-Theory" accounts, and these days is
further expounded upon as "thea-theory", then with quite a
thorough attachment to both the idealistic and analytical traditions,
for an overall account of reason.)



Most people understand "relativity theory" naturally
as having their own account of having a perspective among perspectives,
and theorizing things as from more than one perspective,
that's mostly all there is to it, then for the more formally
specified bits about "relativity of motion" making for "relativity of
space", a "doubly-objective" relativity theory, then that this gets into
natural definitions of space-frames and frame-spaces or Rahme-Raumen and
Raume-Rahmen, then that the L-principle is a usual enough thing, most
people with any sense in their head who aren't entirely self-ish
"understand" "relativity theory".

Then they also usually understand "absolutes" first, also.



>

When thinking about "theory", I like the idea of having just one theory.

I think you may also, though if you're a nominalist fictionalist who's
a fragmented pluralist and absent ideals of regularities and rulialities
their repleteness in truth and causality for infinity and continuity, it
may be difficult.

That said the idea that all the accounts amount makes for a usual
sort of "one-world" hypothesis and a "universal clock hypothesis",
usually enough according to a "cosmological principle" that the
laws of nature are the same everywhere, even if the finite creatures
that usual thinking and feeling beings are have limits.

Thusly for paradox-free reason and constancy in definition for
a constant, consistent, complete, concrete theory, it's a usual
notion that students and researchers in "Foundations" find appealing.

And compelling, ....



>

Also there's that relativity theory and quantum mechanics disagree
with each other "120 orders of decimal magnitude", also there's
that neither has gravity in the theory, and neither has "rest" itself,
though of course there's a usual notion of "rest frame" and "particle"
and as about "the geodesy" and "the weakest force".


So, a reasonable sort of theory would be putting gravity into the
theories as alike a fall-gravity for the geodesy (or orbifold) for
relativity theories so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere, and fall-gravity for the strong nuclear force
for quantum mechanics so that energy conservation isn't constantly
violated everywhere.


fall-gravity


>

That's why there are all the other systems of units.


>

What about that _length_ and _distance_ have different units,
about the _metric_ and _norm_, about _distance_ being _length_
in _time_, that time (its elapsed duration) could be defined
according to space-contraction instead of the other way around?


According to "references", ....


Otherwise those are going to vary under gravity, under acceleration,
and so on.


While there's often mentioned the GPS reference frequency,
not so much the GPS station operator's and station-keeping guide,
with that receivers >> stations.

So, another way to identify a metrology of time is "quasars"
instead of "hyper-fine transitions of the cesium atom,
in a museum in France".




It follows from the functional-freedom bit and various other
reasonings (that relativity theory and quantum theory falsify
each other).

If "creationists" is to mean "Big-Bang cosmologists with their
inflationary cosmology and expanding universe", that's the cosmology
they have, yet, there are others.


Of course everybody knows that the Earth's ephemeris is according
to "parameterized post-Newtonian", and that the definitions of the
quantum mechanics these days include gamma or quadru/multi-pole moments.



The NIST Particle Data Group CODATA releases the measured values
of fundamental physical constants every few years, the small ones
get not only more precise, also _smaller_, helping also inform that
the "running constants" of physics get involved.

So, physics is according to NIST CODATA, with SI: Systeme
Internationale, a reduced second, i.e. not first and quite reduced.


Then most people are also unawares how things like Boltzmann and
Planck constants as physical constants are much mathematical constants
that reflect their placement in terms for algebraic reductions again,
for example the roots of x^2 +-x +-1 like the molar gas constant in
the Boltzmann constant, then as with regards to Planck constant about
what mathematical reductionism is ongoing in the Planckian, why
those aren't exactly "physical" constants.


Anyways that "time" can be defined by "an average field of quasar
measurements" is a thing.


>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron


>

So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
time", in the micro, meso, and macro.

Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.

About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
measuring time.


So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.


Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.


Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.


>

Thanks for writing.

I'm curious how to interpret the smiley, usually enough it's
a reaction of spontaneous happiness, yet in some regards it's
as like the monkey's grimace that's usually aggression or fear.

Then, the idea that there are "collective clocks" and that for
time there are independent metrologies of time as about

the atomic clock,
the synchroton clock,
and the quasar clock,

that would advise a lot of the context about "the clock hypothesis",
and also the role of clocks with rigid measuring rods of length,
for the metrology (the science of measurement) of space,
the metrologies, a metrology.







See, by ignoring trolls and omitting my put-downs of them,
concatenating my posts makes natural linear narrative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348698 — Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Hi,

OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.

So they are now takling:

Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM

Infinite fun with infinite worlds
https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html

A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
speaker of the effort said:

The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that

a single human mathematician mind might
ingest, understand and interpret it.

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
> reached a significant milestone this summer.
> 
> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  >
>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>  >
>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>  >
>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>  > measuring time.
>  >
>  >
>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>  >
>  >
>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>  >
>  >
>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>
>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>
>> Version release notes
>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>
>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>
>>>> Expected result:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>
>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348699 — Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite! (Re: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Hi,

OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.

So they are now takling:

Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM

Infinite fun with infinite worlds
https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html

A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
speaker of the effort said:

The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that

a single human mathematician mind might
ingest, understand and interpret it.

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
> reached a significant milestone this summer.
> 
> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  >
>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>  >
>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>  >
>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>  > measuring time.
>  >
>  >
>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>  >
>  >
>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>  >
>  >
>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>
>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>
>> Version release notes
>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>
>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>
>>>> Expected result:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>
>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348706 — So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML] (Was: Dark Math Factories Interpret the Infinite!)

Hi,

There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
  formalising the Langlands program" . And a

Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
program because he's "concerned it might
contain subtle errors"

Now look at this:

https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML

https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML

According to the related arvix paper:

So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
content passed through at least three hands before
Ueda's Lean formalization.

And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
was used "to check calculations and compare them with
the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
the proof."

The author "checked the final mathematical
arguments and assumes responsibility."

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
> 
> So they are now takling:
> 
> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
> 
> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
> 
> 
> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
> speaker of the effort said:
> 
> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
> 
> a single human mathematician mind might
> ingest, understand and interpret it.
> 
> Bye
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>
>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  >
>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>  >
>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>  >
>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>  > measuring time.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>
>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>
>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>
>>> Version release notes
>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>
>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>
>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348802 — Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later] (Re: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done! [Langlands FML and SML])

Hi,

How it started:

The Experts Were Wrong About AI. Again.
Kapitel 3: The history of underestimation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdwFncdu8t0

How its going:

OpenAI hat hunderte mathematische Beweise veröffentlicht
DorFuchs analysiert die neuen mathematischen Forschungsbeiträge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EawyShKuCY

BTW: Its 722 manuscripts in 372 families.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
> Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
> explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
>   formalising the Langlands program" . And a
> 
> Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
> the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
> Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
> program because he's "concerned it might
> contain subtle errors"
> 
> Now look at this:
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML
> 
> According to the related arvix paper:
> 
> So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
> unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
> proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
> the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
> content passed through at least three hands before
> Ueda's Lean formalization.
> 
> And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
> the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
> was used "to check calculations and compare them with
> the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
> detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
> the proof."
> 
> The author "checked the final mathematical
> arguments and assumes responsibility."
> 
> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348805 — Play Snaky, who did it better OpenAI or Anthropic? (Re: Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later])

Hi,

The game is among the 722 manuscripts for some
reasons. Its among the Lean formulations. And
OpenAI has even fleshed out a big Lean library

for all their Tensor juggling. The 722
manuscripts originally annouced here:

First look at mathematics manuscripts
from an internal frontier model at OpenAI
https://community.openai.com/t/1403886

The game was given a GUI here. But this time
Claude Opus heavily drove this work:

OpenAI’s 21-move one, though their strategy
closed the last three positions my search hadn’t
https://snaky.gotrevor.org/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How it started:
> 
> The Experts Were Wrong About AI. Again.
> Kapitel 3: The history of underestimation
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdwFncdu8t0
> 
> How its going:
> 
> OpenAI hat hunderte mathematische Beweise veröffentlicht
> DorFuchs analysiert die neuen mathematischen Forschungsbeiträge
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EawyShKuCY
> 
> BTW: Its 722 manuscripts in 372 families.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
>> Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
>> explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
>>   formalising the Langlands program" . And a
>>
>> Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
>> the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
>> Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
>> program because he's "concerned it might
>> contain subtle errors"
>>
>> Now look at this:
>>
>> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML
>>
>> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML
>>
>> According to the related arvix paper:
>>
>> So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
>> unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
>> proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
>> the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
>> content passed through at least three hands before
>> Ueda's Lean formalization.
>>
>> And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
>> the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
>> was used "to check calculations and compare them with
>> the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
>> detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
>> the proof."
>>
>> The author "checked the final mathematical
>> arguments and assumes responsibility."
>>
>> Bye

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348806 — Re: Play Snaky, who did it better OpenAI or Anthropic? (Re: Math is the premier AI Victim [Billions of $USD later])

P.S.: BTW they bloody proved a new matrix multiplication,
with asympthotic upper bound showing that ω ≤ 2.25 over
the complex numbers. And Roth irraltionality pi=2. Dang

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> The game is among the 722 manuscripts for some
> reasons. Its among the Lean formulations. And
> OpenAI has even fleshed out a big Lean library
> 
> for all their Tensor juggling. The 722
> manuscripts originally annouced here:
> 
> First look at mathematics manuscripts
> from an internal frontier model at OpenAI
> https://community.openai.com/t/1403886
> 
> The game was given a GUI here. But this time
> Claude Opus heavily drove this work:
> 
> OpenAI’s 21-move one, though their strategy
> closed the last three positions my search hadn’t
> https://snaky.gotrevor.org/
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How it started:
>>
>> The Experts Were Wrong About AI. Again.
>> Kapitel 3: The history of underestimation
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdwFncdu8t0
>>
>> How its going:
>>
>> OpenAI hat hunderte mathematische Beweise veröffentlicht
>> DorFuchs analysiert die neuen mathematischen Forschungsbeiträge
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EawyShKuCY
>>
>> BTW: Its 722 manuscripts in 372 families.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
>>> Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
>>> explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
>>>   formalising the Langlands program" . And a
>>>
>>> Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
>>> the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
>>> Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
>>> program because he's "concerned it might
>>> contain subtle errors"
>>>
>>> Now look at this:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML
>>>
>>> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML
>>>
>>> According to the related arvix paper:
>>>
>>> So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
>>> unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
>>> proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
>>> the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
>>> content passed through at least three hands before
>>> Ueda's Lean formalization.
>>>
>>> And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
>>> the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
>>> was used "to check calculations and compare them with
>>> the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
>>> detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
>>> the proof."
>>>
>>> The author "checked the final mathematical
>>> arguments and assumes responsibility."
>>>
>>> Bye
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348875 — Lean 4: That golden era of logic is gone (Was: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done!)

Hi,

With Microsoft owning Lean 4 and heading for Copilot
Subscription money, the redmond suits, silicon boys
and texas cowboys have finally taken math out of the
kompromat ladden genius of USSR math. Before this happened
there was a wild, unfiltered scene, also thriving on
sci.logic etc.. Peter Schroeder-Heister and
Jean-Yves Beziau in the same room?

Schroeder-Heister bringing his radical proof-theoretic
semantics (natural extension rules, harmony, and
definitional reflection) squaring off against Beziau—the
ultimate provocateur of paraconsistency and universal logic
who treats universal logic like a contact sport—means
that wasn't just an academic seminar. That was a
full-contact intellectual cage match.

When you get figures like that in a gritty, post-industrial
setting like Łódź before it gets sanitized, you get that
raw, unfiltered academic electricity. Everyone is arguing
for the sheer love of the logic, with zero corporate
filter or grant-chasing bureaucracy.

It’s the classic tragedy of successful academic movements:
what starts as a wild, fringe enclave of brilliant
dissidents eventually gets institutionalized. The program
committees get captured by the usual administrative
machinery, the rough edges get sanded down for funding
boards, and the raw intellectual chaos turns into an
"academic mafia" swapping citations.

Bye

P.S.: Something else also aged like wine, look
at this wikipedia nonsense, I mean at that time we
already had AUTOMATH, so what is Wikipedia talking
about when it says "idiological"?

Although the first presentation of the Mizar system
on 14 November 1973 at a seminar in the Institute of
Library Science and Scientific Information was an ideology
understood as a visionary speculation rather than research
project, his idea was later developed by himself and
his collaborators to the Mizar Mathematical Library (MML)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrzej_Trybulec

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
> Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
> explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
>   formalising the Langlands program" . And a
> 
> Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
> the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
> Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
> program because he's "concerned it might
> contain subtle errors"
> 
> Now look at this:
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML
> 
> According to the related arvix paper:
> 
> So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
> unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
> proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
> the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
> content passed through at least three hands before
> Ueda's Lean formalization.
> 
> And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
> the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
> was used "to check calculations and compare them with
> the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
> detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
> the proof."
> 
> The author "checked the final mathematical
> arguments and assumes responsibility."
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
>> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
>> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
>>
>> So they are now takling:
>>
>> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
>>
>> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
>> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
>>
>>
>> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
>> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
>> speaker of the effort said:
>>
>> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
>> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
>> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
>>
>> a single human mathematician mind might
>> ingest, understand and interpret it.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>>
>>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define 
>>> "measurement of
>>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>>  >
>>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval 
>>> observatory
>>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>>  >
>>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>>  > measuring time.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>>
>>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>>
>>>> Version release notes
>>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#349861 — Math AI Vegans hate the Druids Cauldron [MakazhanAlpamys / Soup] (Re: So it was a race against Buzzard. Well done!)

Hi,

How it started,

Mathematics of the Future
5.6 AI-vegan mathematicians
https://math.mit.edu/~etingof/futuremath.pdf

How its going:

Soup Layer Streaming for LLM fine-tuning
#4 Repository of the Day
https://github.com/MakazhanAlpamys/Soup

I fear one or two kids might teach it
math (for example via Sutskever/Megill
approach) and soon become new Einsteins,

developing wormhole warpspeed math.

Have Fun

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> There's a larger project called FALSE (Formalising
> Arithmetic in the Lean Software Environment)
> explicitly aimed at "making progress towards
>   formalising the Langlands program" . And a
> 
> Twitter thread claims Claude autoformalized
> the Fermat proof "in just 11 days," with Kevin
> Buzzard now wanting to formalize the Langlands
> program because he's "concerned it might
> contain subtle errors"
> 
> Now look at this:
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_FML
> 
> https://github.com/fukubillueda-web/epsilon_SML
> 
> According to the related arvix paper:
> 
> So the provenance chain is: Dwork (attributed,
> unpublished) → Langlands (used it) → Lakkis (partial
> proof, sign issue) → Ueda (completes it, 2026). That's
> the "mixtape" you're looking for — the mathematical
> content passed through at least three hands before
> Ueda's Lean formalization.
> 
> And then: "OpenAI ChatGPT was used extensively in
> the development of this proof." The paper says ChatGPT
> was used "to check calculations and compare them with
> the arguments of Dwork, Langlands, and Lakkis, and
> detect inconsistencies in intermediate versions of
> the proof."
> 
> The author "checked the final mathematical
> arguments and assumes responsibility."
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
>> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
>> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
>>
>> So they are now takling:
>>
>> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
>>
>> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
>> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
>>
>>
>> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
>> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
>> speaker of the effort said:
>>
>> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
>> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
>> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
>>
>> a single human mathematician mind might
>> ingest, understand and interpret it.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
>>> reached a significant milestone this summer.
>>>
>>> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
>>> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define 
>>> "measurement of
>>>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>>>  >
>>>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval 
>>> observatory
>>>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>>>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>>>  >
>>>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>>>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>>>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>>>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>>>  > measuring time.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>>>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>>>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>>>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>>>
>>>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>>>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>>>
>>>> Version release notes
>>>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>>>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bye
>>>>>
>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Expected result:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bye
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348830 — An elementary proof or pi irrationality = 2 [Natural Intelligence]

Hi,

Take this continued fraction:

% pi(+Integer, +Float, -Float)
pi(0, R, S) :- !, S is R-3.
pi(N, R, S) :-
    H is 6+(2*N-1)^2/R,
    M is N-1,
    pi(M, H, S).

Nice little corridor for pi:

?- between(10,20,N), pi(N,6,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
10-3.1414067184965013
11-3.1417360992606653
12-3.141479689004255
13-3.141683189207755
14-3.141518985595275
15-3.1416533941974265
16-3.141541985997783
17-3.141635356679389
18-3.1415563302845726
19-3.1416238066678384
20-3.1415657346585473
true.

We can als compute roth:

% roth(+Integer, -Float)
roth(N,X) :-
    pi(N, 6, A),
    M is N+1,
    pi(M, 6, B),
    X is 1+log(B)/log(A).

Now we have a corridor for 2:

?- between(10,20,N), roth(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
10-2.0000915947815723
11-1.9999287043438398
12-2.0000565883650765
13-1.999954341912648
14-2.000037375237465
15-1.9999690217963195
16-2.000025963563826
17-1.9999780257693796
18-2.000018763059092
19-1.9999838523285578
20-2.000013997167758
true.

How proof limsup is 2?

Proof Sketch:

Lets check the formula 1+log(An+1)/log(An) .
If An+1 < pi and An > pi. We know that
1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(pi)/log(An)
and 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(An+1)/log(pi).

So we get limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(An) =<
limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(pi) = 1+log(pi)/log(pi) = 2.
But since pi is irrational the lowerbound

is anyways 2, so that Liouvielle-Roth
irrationality measure = 2 follows.

Q.E.D.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
> 
> So they are now takling:
> 
> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
> 
> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
> 
> 
> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
> speaker of the effort said:
> 
> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
> 
> a single human mathematician mind might
> ingest, understand and interpret it.
> 
> Bye
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348832 — Cont. Now with Integers (Was: An elementary proof or pi irrationality = 2 [Natural Intelligence])

Hi,

Now with integers, to really produce some results:

% pi2(+Integer, +Rational, -Rational)
pi2(0, P/Q, R/Q) :- !, R is P-3*Q.
pi2(N, P/Q, S) :-
    H is 6*P+(2*N-1)^2*Q,
    M is N-1,
    pi2(M, H/P, S).

Now I see:

?- between(10,20,N), pi2(N,6/1,X), Y is X, write(N-X-Y), nl, fail; true.
10-475113942765/151242416325-3.1414067184965018
11-11922290683065/3794809718700-3.1417360992606653
12-322869019821075/102776096548125-3.141479689004255
13-9388645795842075/2988412653476250-3.1416831892077552
14-291703390224616125/92854250304440625-3.1415189855952756
15-9646071455650881825/3070380543400170000-3.141653394197426
16-338203386739761387075/107655217802968460625-3.1415419859977827
17-12533792135642378629875/3989575718580595893750-3.1416353566793886
18-489501901570061970946125/155815096120119939628125-3.1415563302845726
19-20095772843114788169975625/6396619735457555416312500-3.1416238066678384
20-865107029346752986828909875/275374479611447760672253125-3.141565734658547
true.

And further:

% roth2(+Integer, -Float)
roth2(N, X) :-
    pi2(N, 6/1, A/_),
    M is N+1,
    pi2(M, 6/1, B/_),
    X is 1+msb(B)/msb(A).

Now I see, no more alternating:

?- between(10,20,N), roth2(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
10-2.1315789473684212
11-2.116279069767442
12-2.104166666666667
13-2.0943396226415096
14-2.086206896551724
15-2.079365079365079
16-2.0735294117647056
17-2.0684931506849313
18-2.0769230769230766
19-2.0595238095238093
20-2.056179775280899
true.

And for big values pretty much looks like 2+C/N:

?- roth2(1000,X).
X = 2.0011523151058035.
?- roth2(10000,X).
X = 2.000116750597374.
?- roth2(100000,X).
X = 2.0000111335844575.

Bye

BTW, because of the way I compute
the continued fraction, it takes some time:

?- time(roth2(100000,X)).
% Zeit 11258.941 ms, Benutzer 100 %, Lips 53 k
X = 2.0000111335844575.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Take this continued fraction:
> 
> % pi(+Integer, +Float, -Float)
> pi(0, R, S) :- !, S is R-3.
> pi(N, R, S) :-
>     H is 6+(2*N-1)^2/R,
>     M is N-1,
>     pi(M, H, S).
> 
> Nice little corridor for pi:
> 
> ?- between(10,20,N), pi(N,6,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
> 10-3.1414067184965013
> 11-3.1417360992606653
> 12-3.141479689004255
> 13-3.141683189207755
> 14-3.141518985595275
> 15-3.1416533941974265
> 16-3.141541985997783
> 17-3.141635356679389
> 18-3.1415563302845726
> 19-3.1416238066678384
> 20-3.1415657346585473
> true.
> 
> We can als compute roth:
> 
> % roth(+Integer, -Float)
> roth(N,X) :-
>     pi(N, 6, A),
>     M is N+1,
>     pi(M, 6, B),
>     X is 1+log(B)/log(A).
> 
> Now we have a corridor for 2:
> 
> ?- between(10,20,N), roth(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
> 10-2.0000915947815723
> 11-1.9999287043438398
> 12-2.0000565883650765
> 13-1.999954341912648
> 14-2.000037375237465
> 15-1.9999690217963195
> 16-2.000025963563826
> 17-1.9999780257693796
> 18-2.000018763059092
> 19-1.9999838523285578
> 20-2.000013997167758
> true.
> 
> How proof limsup is 2?
> 
> Proof Sketch:
> 
> Lets check the formula 1+log(An+1)/log(An) .
> If An+1 < pi and An > pi. We know that
> 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(pi)/log(An)
> and 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(An+1)/log(pi).
> 
> So we get limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(An) =<
> limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(pi) = 1+log(pi)/log(pi) = 2.
> But since pi is irrational the lowerbound
> 
> is anyways 2, so that Liouvielle-Roth
> irrationality measure = 2 follows.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
>> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
>> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
>>
>> So they are now takling:
>>
>> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
>>
>> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
>> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
>>
>>
>> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
>> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
>> speaker of the effort said:
>>
>> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
>> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
>> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
>>
>> a single human mathematician mind might
>> ingest, understand and interpret it.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348833 — Superintelligenz ist auch F.U.D. (OAI:The-irrationality-exponent-of-pi-is-2-September-24-2026)

Hi,

An Elegant Continued Fraction for π
L. J. Lange - Pages 456-458 | Volume 106, 1999
The American Mathematical Monthly
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00029890.1999.12005070

Meine Vermutung der jeweils zu einer bestimmten
Tiefe berechnete Kettenbruch stimmt mit den
partiellen Summen der Nilakantha Reihe überein.

Aber ich weiss nicht ob man mit der Nilakantha
Reihe so direkt rho=2 erhält, wie es den Anschein
macht für den Kettenbruch.

Bye

See also this AI slop from a "frontier model":

https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/The-irrationality-exponent-of-pi-is-2-September-24-2026

https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/reasoning_traces/irrationality-exponent-of-pi.pdf

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Now with integers, to really produce some results:
> 
> % pi2(+Integer, +Rational, -Rational)
> pi2(0, P/Q, R/Q) :- !, R is P-3*Q.
> pi2(N, P/Q, S) :-
>     H is 6*P+(2*N-1)^2*Q,
>     M is N-1,
>     pi2(M, H/P, S).
> 
> Now I see:
> 
> ?- between(10,20,N), pi2(N,6/1,X), Y is X, write(N-X-Y), nl, fail; true.
> 10-475113942765/151242416325-3.1414067184965018
> 11-11922290683065/3794809718700-3.1417360992606653
> 12-322869019821075/102776096548125-3.141479689004255
> 13-9388645795842075/2988412653476250-3.1416831892077552
> 14-291703390224616125/92854250304440625-3.1415189855952756
> 15-9646071455650881825/3070380543400170000-3.141653394197426
> 16-338203386739761387075/107655217802968460625-3.1415419859977827
> 17-12533792135642378629875/3989575718580595893750-3.1416353566793886
> 18-489501901570061970946125/155815096120119939628125-3.1415563302845726
> 19-20095772843114788169975625/6396619735457555416312500-3.1416238066678384
> 20-865107029346752986828909875/275374479611447760672253125-3.141565734658547 
> 
> true.
> 
> And further:
> 
> % roth2(+Integer, -Float)
> roth2(N, X) :-
>     pi2(N, 6/1, A/_),
>     M is N+1,
>     pi2(M, 6/1, B/_),
>     X is 1+msb(B)/msb(A).
> 
> Now I see, no more alternating:
> 
> ?- between(10,20,N), roth2(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
> 10-2.1315789473684212
> 11-2.116279069767442
> 12-2.104166666666667
> 13-2.0943396226415096
> 14-2.086206896551724
> 15-2.079365079365079
> 16-2.0735294117647056
> 17-2.0684931506849313
> 18-2.0769230769230766
> 19-2.0595238095238093
> 20-2.056179775280899
> true.
> 
> And for big values pretty much looks like 2+C/N:
> 
> ?- roth2(1000,X).
> X = 2.0011523151058035.
> ?- roth2(10000,X).
> X = 2.000116750597374.
> ?- roth2(100000,X).
> X = 2.0000111335844575.
> 
> Bye
> 
> BTW, because of the way I compute
> the continued fraction, it takes some time:
> 
> ?- time(roth2(100000,X)).
> % Zeit 11258.941 ms, Benutzer 100 %, Lips 53 k
> X = 2.0000111335844575.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Take this continued fraction:
>>
>> % pi(+Integer, +Float, -Float)
>> pi(0, R, S) :- !, S is R-3.
>> pi(N, R, S) :-
>>     H is 6+(2*N-1)^2/R,
>>     M is N-1,
>>     pi(M, H, S).
>>
>> Nice little corridor for pi:
>>
>> ?- between(10,20,N), pi(N,6,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
>> 10-3.1414067184965013
>> 11-3.1417360992606653
>> 12-3.141479689004255
>> 13-3.141683189207755
>> 14-3.141518985595275
>> 15-3.1416533941974265
>> 16-3.141541985997783
>> 17-3.141635356679389
>> 18-3.1415563302845726
>> 19-3.1416238066678384
>> 20-3.1415657346585473
>> true.
>>
>> We can als compute roth:
>>
>> % roth(+Integer, -Float)
>> roth(N,X) :-
>>     pi(N, 6, A),
>>     M is N+1,
>>     pi(M, 6, B),
>>     X is 1+log(B)/log(A).
>>
>> Now we have a corridor for 2:
>>
>> ?- between(10,20,N), roth(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
>> 10-2.0000915947815723
>> 11-1.9999287043438398
>> 12-2.0000565883650765
>> 13-1.999954341912648
>> 14-2.000037375237465
>> 15-1.9999690217963195
>> 16-2.000025963563826
>> 17-1.9999780257693796
>> 18-2.000018763059092
>> 19-1.9999838523285578
>> 20-2.000013997167758
>> true.
>>
>> How proof limsup is 2?
>>
>> Proof Sketch:
>>
>> Lets check the formula 1+log(An+1)/log(An) .
>> If An+1 < pi and An > pi. We know that
>> 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(pi)/log(An)
>> and 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(An+1)/log(pi).
>>
>> So we get limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(An) =<
>> limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(pi) = 1+log(pi)/log(pi) = 2.
>> But since pi is irrational the lowerbound
>>
>> is anyways 2, so that Liouvielle-Roth
>> irrationality measure = 2 follows.
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
>>> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
>>> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
>>>
>>> So they are now takling:
>>>
>>> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
>>>
>>> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
>>> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
>>> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
>>> speaker of the effort said:
>>>
>>> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
>>> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
>>> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
>>>
>>> a single human mathematician mind might
>>> ingest, understand and interpret it.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348844 — Time got dilated by Gemini & Deepseek [The new Shalosh B. Ekhad] (Was: Superintelligenz ist auch F.U.D. )

Hi,

Gemini & Deepseek trying the best to be good
buddies in my Math development now. Still trying
to harden my results. Now computing sigma and tau,

via this little gadget:

% pi(+Integer, +Rational, -Rational)
pi(0, P/Q, R/Q) :- !, R is P-3*Q.
pi(N, P/Q, S) :-
     H is 6*P+(2*N-1)^2*Q,
     M is N-1,
     pi(M, H/P, S).

% up(+Integer, -Float, -Float, -Float)
up(N, U, S, T) :-
    pi(N, 6/1, P/Q),
    S is msb(Q)/N,
    T is msb(abs(Q*31415926535897932384626433832795-
          P*10000000000000000000000000000000)
          // 10000000000000000000000000000000)/N,
    U is 1+S/T.

But the thing seems to be super exponential:

?- up(1000,U,S,T).
U = 2.00336417157275, S = 9.544, T = 9.512.
?- up(10000,U,S,T).
U = 2.0003270111183777, S = 12.8478, T = 12.8436.
?- up(100000,U,S,T).
U = 2.0000321647428647, S = 16.16729, T = 16.16677.

What now? Ok, lets try gcd/2:

% up2(+Integer, -Float, -Float, -Float)
up2(N, U, S, T) :-
    pi(N, 6/1, A/B),
    C is gcd(A,B),
    P is A//C,
    Q is B//C,
    S is msb(Q)/N,
    T is msb(abs(Q*31415926535897932384626433832795-
          P*10000000000000000000000000000000)
          // 10000000000000000000000000000000)/N,
    U is 1+S/T.

Now it becomes exponential:

?- up2(1000,U,S,T).
U = 2.0112874779541445, S = 2.867, T = 2.835.
?- up2(10000,U,S,T).
U = 2.001460158531498, S = 2.8806, T = 2.8764.
?- up2(100000,U,S,T).
U = 2.0001767709152922, S = 2.8856, T = 2.88509.

LoL

Bye

P.S.: Trying to find an exact formula for the GCD
now, or something smaller than the GCD by the help of
Gemini & Deepseek . Despite like Deepseek making

funny errors like gcd(a+b)=gcd(a)+gcd(b), and
Gemini being rather lazy sometimes, I learnt
already a new word Casoratian:

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Casoratian.html

So Gemini & Deepseek give me a total different
Shalosh B. Ekhad. Not the usual Maple grind, or
Wolfram Alpha grind, more breadth and depth,

when it comes to drawing connections:

Welcome to the Home Page of Doron Zeilberger's servant
Last Update: Aug. 9, 2005
https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/ekhad.html

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> An Elegant Continued Fraction for π
> L. J. Lange - Pages 456-458 | Volume 106, 1999
> The American Mathematical Monthly
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00029890.1999.12005070
> 
> Meine Vermutung der jeweils zu einer bestimmten
> Tiefe berechnete Kettenbruch stimmt mit den
> partiellen Summen der Nilakantha Reihe überein.
> 
> Aber ich weiss nicht ob man mit der Nilakantha
> Reihe so direkt rho=2 erhält, wie es den Anschein
> macht für den Kettenbruch.
> 
> Bye
> 
> See also this AI slop from a "frontier model":
> 
> https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/preprints/The-irrationality-exponent-of-pi-is-2-September-24-2026 
> 
> 
> https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/reasoning_traces/irrationality-exponent-of-pi.pdf 
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now with integers, to really produce some results:
>>
>> % pi2(+Integer, +Rational, -Rational)
>> pi2(0, P/Q, R/Q) :- !, R is P-3*Q.
>> pi2(N, P/Q, S) :-
>>     H is 6*P+(2*N-1)^2*Q,
>>     M is N-1,
>>     pi2(M, H/P, S).
>>
>> Now I see:
>>
>> ?- between(10,20,N), pi2(N,6/1,X), Y is X, write(N-X-Y), nl, fail; true.
>> 10-475113942765/151242416325-3.1414067184965018
>> 11-11922290683065/3794809718700-3.1417360992606653
>> 12-322869019821075/102776096548125-3.141479689004255
>> 13-9388645795842075/2988412653476250-3.1416831892077552
>> 14-291703390224616125/92854250304440625-3.1415189855952756
>> 15-9646071455650881825/3070380543400170000-3.141653394197426
>> 16-338203386739761387075/107655217802968460625-3.1415419859977827
>> 17-12533792135642378629875/3989575718580595893750-3.1416353566793886
>> 18-489501901570061970946125/155815096120119939628125-3.1415563302845726
>> 19-20095772843114788169975625/6396619735457555416312500-3.1416238066678384 
>>
>> 20-865107029346752986828909875/275374479611447760672253125-3.141565734658547 
>>
>> true.
>>
>> And further:
>>
>> % roth2(+Integer, -Float)
>> roth2(N, X) :-
>>     pi2(N, 6/1, A/_),
>>     M is N+1,
>>     pi2(M, 6/1, B/_),
>>     X is 1+msb(B)/msb(A).
>>
>> Now I see, no more alternating:
>>
>> ?- between(10,20,N), roth2(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
>> 10-2.1315789473684212
>> 11-2.116279069767442
>> 12-2.104166666666667
>> 13-2.0943396226415096
>> 14-2.086206896551724
>> 15-2.079365079365079
>> 16-2.0735294117647056
>> 17-2.0684931506849313
>> 18-2.0769230769230766
>> 19-2.0595238095238093
>> 20-2.056179775280899
>> true.
>>
>> And for big values pretty much looks like 2+C/N:
>>
>> ?- roth2(1000,X).
>> X = 2.0011523151058035.
>> ?- roth2(10000,X).
>> X = 2.000116750597374.
>> ?- roth2(100000,X).
>> X = 2.0000111335844575.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> BTW, because of the way I compute
>> the continued fraction, it takes some time:
>>
>> ?- time(roth2(100000,X)).
>> % Zeit 11258.941 ms, Benutzer 100 %, Lips 53 k
>> X = 2.0000111335844575.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Take this continued fraction:
>>>
>>> % pi(+Integer, +Float, -Float)
>>> pi(0, R, S) :- !, S is R-3.
>>> pi(N, R, S) :-
>>>     H is 6+(2*N-1)^2/R,
>>>     M is N-1,
>>>     pi(M, H, S).
>>>
>>> Nice little corridor for pi:
>>>
>>> ?- between(10,20,N), pi(N,6,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
>>> 10-3.1414067184965013
>>> 11-3.1417360992606653
>>> 12-3.141479689004255
>>> 13-3.141683189207755
>>> 14-3.141518985595275
>>> 15-3.1416533941974265
>>> 16-3.141541985997783
>>> 17-3.141635356679389
>>> 18-3.1415563302845726
>>> 19-3.1416238066678384
>>> 20-3.1415657346585473
>>> true.
>>>
>>> We can als compute roth:
>>>
>>> % roth(+Integer, -Float)
>>> roth(N,X) :-
>>>     pi(N, 6, A),
>>>     M is N+1,
>>>     pi(M, 6, B),
>>>     X is 1+log(B)/log(A).
>>>
>>> Now we have a corridor for 2:
>>>
>>> ?- between(10,20,N), roth(N,X), write(N-X), nl, fail; true.
>>> 10-2.0000915947815723
>>> 11-1.9999287043438398
>>> 12-2.0000565883650765
>>> 13-1.999954341912648
>>> 14-2.000037375237465
>>> 15-1.9999690217963195
>>> 16-2.000025963563826
>>> 17-1.9999780257693796
>>> 18-2.000018763059092
>>> 19-1.9999838523285578
>>> 20-2.000013997167758
>>> true.
>>>
>>> How proof limsup is 2?
>>>
>>> Proof Sketch:
>>>
>>> Lets check the formula 1+log(An+1)/log(An) .
>>> If An+1 < pi and An > pi. We know that
>>> 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(pi)/log(An)
>>> and 1+log(An+1)/log(An) < 1+log(An+1)/log(pi).
>>>
>>> So we get limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(An) =<
>>> limsup 1+log(An+1)/log(pi) = 1+log(pi)/log(pi) = 2.
>>> But since pi is irrational the lowerbound
>>>
>>> is anyways 2, so that Liouvielle-Roth
>>> irrationality measure = 2 follows.
>>>
>>> Q.E.D.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> OpenAI has announced enhancing their Math Swarms
>>>> by an interpretability accelerator prompt recently
>>>> discovered in a Terrence Tao workshop.
>>>>
>>>> So they are now takling:
>>>>
>>>> Mathematician W. Hugh Woodin Explains Continuum Hypothesis
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC7wglkBWMM
>>>>
>>>> Infinite fun with infinite worlds
>>>> https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/08/infinite-fun-with-the-infinite-worlds.html 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A partial Lean 4 formalization is already in
>>>> the making. But the hurdles are high. Some
>>>> speaker of the effort said:
>>>>
>>>> The computer might find a new tamagochi knottheory
>>>> lemma, which will then allow SpaceX to fly to
>>>> workholes, but the hurdle will be hight that
>>>>
>>>> a single human mathematician mind might
>>>> ingest, understand and interpret it.
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#348877 — Avoiding logical strength in real analysis [Lattice Games] (Was: Hyperspectral Measurements for Inter-Calibration)

Hi,

Whoever trolled FOM with this post was a genius:

Avoiding logical strength in real analysis
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.15151

Alphabet Soup (Buchstabensuppe) for grown-ups!

"Water boil and herbal steam,
Dissolve the fog and clear the dream.
Separate truth from alphabet soup,
Break the infinite loop and closed-bound loop.
Banishing Gabriel’s limit-free rage,
And dark numbers off Mückenheim’s page.

Filter the FOM of crankery’s noise,
And pseudo-philosophical, endless decoys.
Tame $\mathsf{RT}^2_2$ in its wild, jagged zoo,
Collapse forcing trees down to what is true.
Bring light to letters, structure to sight,
Elucidate thoughts in pure hearth light.
By leaf and steam, by fire and air,

Make the hidden patterns clear!"

Bye

P.S.: Not new, but funny how the big fives
of reverse math, got a sibling. Can you do
the heavy lifting without proof assistants?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Hyperspectral measurements for inter-calibration,
> reached a significant milestone this summer.
> 
> The naval observatory only uses fidget spinners
> to measure time, so forget Colorado.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>  >
>  > So, there's at least three accounts of what can define "measurement of
>  > time", in the micro, meso, and macro.
>  >
>  > Then these days pretty much the world relies on "the naval observatory
>  > in Colorado" if not so much "the clock tower in Greenwich", as with
>  > regards to ye olde UTC, CUT, "Zulu", and so on, time.
>  >
>  > About relativity theory and "measuring rods and clocks", then, it's
>  > similar that "metric and norm" for "length and distance" also has
>  > about the Planckian what are "iota-values" as it would be, or, "Pauli
>  > Plancks", or "Dirac's Pauli Plancks", of measuring space, vis-a-vis,
>  > measuring time.
>  >
>  >
>  > So, there are at least three accounts of what defines measuring time,
>  > and at least three accounts of what defines measuring space.
>  >
>  >
>  > Then, since relativity theory is defined by what does that,
>  > it has the various ways, to so fulfill doing that.
>  >
>  >
>  > Yeah, I know, most "professional physicists" only have one of those
>  > on their little note-card with which they passed graduate school.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ross Finlayson schrieb:
>>  > Or shaves pennies.
>>
>>  >>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI
>>  >>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>  >>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>
>> Cost/hour: $200,000.00
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: If it could do some quant trading magic, one would
>> possibly pay so much. But Logtalk is simply too lame:
>>
>> Version release notes
>> XVM Engine v10.2.4 is the full engine capable of running
>> all XVM and Logtalk programs, excluding for logtalk tools.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The 9122171.18175435 is a little offending, what if one
>>> keeps a federal secret after the 6 fraction digit?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, leaving the beaten path of my Prolog system
>>>> probing, and look at some newer beast.
>>>>
>>>> This looks bad:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.18175435
>>>>
>>>> Expected result:
>>>>
>>>> ?- format('~6f', [pi**14]), nl.
>>>> 9122171.181754
>>>>
>>>> Bye
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Tested using this test tester:
>>>>
>>>> X-Machines Virtual Machine (XVM™) is a neurosymbolic virtual AI 
>>>> processor which combines neural processes with symbolic reasoning.
>>>> https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-6luxq22pgmehe
>>>>
>>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>>  >>> See also:
>>>>  >>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImprovementsForum/0110-format.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web