| Revision as of 20:25, 6 November 2007 editLikebox (talk | contribs)6,376 edits →Computational Proof← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:12, 21 May 2024 edit undoMaestrofin (talk | contribs)146 edits →Indefinitely blocked: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| (586 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archive box|search=yes|auto=yes}} | |||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| Don't bother, I'm gone. | |||
| ==Dude== | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:{{{art|}}}|, especially what you did for ]|}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| Dude...i came late. | |||
| *] | |||
| Much love. You are awesome. | |||
| *] | |||
| -De Ferns Hans, Martha's Vineyard <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:{{{1|}}}|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| ] (]) 02:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| In response to , I've removed the vote for two reasons. One, Brews ohare is specifically banned from posting in Misplaced Pages space. That is a decision of ArbCom. Regardless of our feelings about the decision, nobody has the authority to override that decision. Two, Brews Ohare's comments already exist, in struck form, between support votes 148 and 149. Your posting replicated his posting. Thank you, --] (]) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Archimedes Plutonium == | |||
| == Brews == | |||
| The ] article has been a magnet for unverifiable biographical information and I have never seen evidence that "Archimedes Plutonium" is a topic worthy of a Misplaced Pages article. I think everything that need be said can be said in one or two sentences at ]. --] 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My advice is that you start a list of published works at ] that assert the importance of "Archimedes Plutonium". If you can list a bunch of good sources then you will be able to make a good article. Until then, the short blurb at ] seems adequate. --] 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::"And my advice is that you find out if your opinion is a majority opinion before imposing it on everybody else" <-- Thanks, but I must ignore your advice. Wikipedians do not have to determine a majority opinion before acting to improve the encyclopedia. --] 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Misplaced Pages does not run popularity contests. In my view, the decision of who to have biographical articles for should be based on the existence of a large and reputable body of published literature about the subjects of such articles. Without a serious biographical literature outside of Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages editors have no real basis upon which to create biographical articles. Sure, you can read usenet posts and blogs and various unverifiable websites and then write about the people who make usenet posts, but that is ]. If you can construct a list of reliable published sources that explain the importance of "Archimedes Plutonium", then you have a chance of having an article. Based on the reliable sources I have seen, the short blurb ] seems adequate. --] 20:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"You can't impose your opinion on others" <-- Administrators are called upon to look at the evidence and make decisions about the deletion of pages. It is not uncommon for the majority of people who are personally interested in particular pages to be in favor of keeping those pages. However, if the reliable sources that are needed to support a Misplaced Pages article do not exist, it is the duty of administrators to delete the articles. Its not really that hard to count reliable sources and decide if an article should be deleted due to it having too few sources of reliable information. As far as I can tell, there are too few reliable sources about "Archimedes Plutonium" to support an article. If you can construct a reasonably long list of good sources then you will be able to justify having an article. --] 20:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Guy's suggestion that you be banned from commenting on Brews is phrased tactlessly and disrespectfully. I understand your frustrations in this unfortunate situation, but as an outsider I was myself very nearly put off from trying to disentangle the threads and making my hopefully constructive suggestion regarding Brews. This was due to your (and a few others') frustrated but unhelpful contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, I believe that the atmosphere you are contributing to encourages facile "solutions" like Ryan's, which are not fair but just strive to limit disruption any way possible. With that in mind, regardless of your frustration, would you consider voluntarily disengaging from the discussion for a few weeks? I don't think my own suggestion is brilliant in any way (nor as a non-admin could I in any way enforce it), but unless you disengage I don't see anything happening other than most noninvolved observers scrolling through to the next thread, leaving it to one of the hardline enforcers to just "clean up the mess" and eventually archive it. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Motion == | |||
| Hi Likebox, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at ]. ] (]) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == AP == | |||
| :And I have moved your comments to a new discussion section. ''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' ] (]) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding ] == | |||
| I don't know anything about his views on Jesus, but that sort of crankery is less interesting to me anyway. As far as the murder goes: no one has even hinted that AP was guilty of a crime there. Arthur's only beef was that we cannot say he was utterly uninvolved unless there is a source saying so. If there's only one police source saying something less broad, then we need to report what ''was'' said, and not our interpretation of it. ] 13:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Per a <span class="plainlinks"></span> at ]: | |||
| : I stick to my summary. If we are going to say something about the case, it has to be verifiable. If we say something broader than published accounts report, then we have violated WP policy regarding verifiability. Your characterization of the issue as an "attack" against AP is uncharitable at best and, I would say, dishonest (given the fact that you have read the rationale for Arthur's edits). | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| : I know you feel defensive towards AP and this article, but you really shouldn't sling such allegations regarding other editors about like that. ] 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| #] is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of ] (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. ] is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken. | |||
| :: You know, until this little dispute, I didn't even know that Arthur Rubin was an administrator. Even so, I don't see him as particularly powerful or prone to throwing his weight around, either in this case or another. In fact, by and large, I regarded his edits as well-motivated. | |||
| #], ], ], and ] are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on ], broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ''On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,'' ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: So, sorry, I don't see that I'm quite on your side on this issue. But that's okay, since I'm just a peon around here anyway. | |||
| :''']''' | |||
| :: As an aside, I do find it curious that you are so taken by AP's crankery. It really doesn't seem anything special to me. You made a lot of claims on the talk page that I sincerely doubt you could not back up, especially that AP's still-evolving theory is somehow equiconsistent with more traditional theories. But, hey, everyone needs a crankish diversion. You can have AP and I will be forever a James S. Harris devotee (though, perhaps with less respect than you show for AP). | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| ::Anyway, best of luck to you and I hope that you won't leave WP over editorial differences. You've shown a willingness to put in some effort and that's important. ] 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| was most probably trolling, but the restriction was quite clear - don't discuss Brews ohare. Your post to my talk page was merely an attempt to antagonise the situation and test administrators willingness to act on the motion, so have 24 hours off. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 22:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Archimedes Plutonium history undelete == | |||
| :: No--- you see, I am just an ''opposite'' sort of person, which means that I always do the opposite of what people tell me to do! So the ''only'' thing I will ever talk about is Brews ohare from this point on. That and, also, I don't like you very much, and ArbCom members have a low intelligence.] (]) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| No, I won't undelete the history per ]. All administrators can see all deleted revisions from June 2004 onwards so I don't see a need to undelete it either. I see that you've - just wait for a response there. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Howdy fuckers == | |||
| :The diff links don't even work for admins - they can check the diffs manually. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hey, guys, Brews OHARE! I won't stop talking about BREWS OHARE! It's like TOURETTE's SYNDROME! Wow, you're going to have to block me forever and ever and ever. Gosh, folks, BREWS OHARE. I LOVE THAT GUY.] (]) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Articles == | |||
| :: You know what I was thinking about this? I was thinking BREWS OHARE! Wouldn't it be great if he could chip in!] (]) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am very happy to work towards compromise wording on these articles. I rewrote the section on Godel's theorem, but it's still the same idea - if there was an effective, complete, ω-consistent theory then the halting problem would be decidable. On the ] page, I don't mind having what you call "computer science" terminology - I spent a long time trying to integrate your terminology into the other section. What I will argue against is: nonstandard terminology and excessive handwaving. But I can compromise on some handwaving. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 03:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Wow, you need to block me here too, to stop me from TALKING ABOUT BREWS OHARE (which I ''most assuredly'' promise you will be the ''only'' thing I will ever talk about here from here til eternity).] (]) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello from me, Godel, and Archimedes P == | |||
| You're giving them what they want. prove to them they are worng. It's the only way anyone can win right now. ] (]) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| I am still interested in the proof you provided on GIT. I believe it has a magic ability : one can sit down with a 21st century person, sketch the proof on a cocktail napkin (ok, both sides.) That person can then take the napkin, wander off and scratch his head for three days, and return to say "now i see." | |||
| :: I don't give a shit what "they" want--- I don't want "them" to have the benefit of my participation on Misplaced Pages, and I want it to be on the record that they banned me for talking about Brews ohare, which I will continue to do until they ban me.] (]) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| To me, that is no small thing. | |||
| == More Brews!! == | |||
| I don't know if consensus at the Misplaced Pages GIT article will accept it. Non-standard material has a rough time in the Talk pages in this and other topics (an inclination i disagree with.) | |||
| Ohare, ohare! Oh where the Brews ohare is the Brews ohare?!! Why Brews.] (]) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Whatever happens at the article, I should like to take this section and resurrect it elsewhere. There is, for example, the wikimedia project and others which tend to be more 'inclusionist'. There are other options as well. | |||
| == March 2010 == | |||
| I think with some minor corrections in terminology, and a few lines of explanation here and there, it can be made agreeable to even the most incredulous. I shd like to step thru it, line at a time, and ensure there are no gaps or subtle errors. I'll start up an off-site wiki and get this going. Wd you like to co-author it w/ me (which of course, you have already done by providing the original text)? ] 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a , the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| :Considering you've expressed a desire to continue trolling over this, it likely won't be too hard to get this bumped up to indef. ] 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I appreciate it.] (]) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I assure you I am a real person. What I dislike about your rewrites is that they use nonstandard language and vague arguments. There is a reason that recursion theory uses the terminology that it does, and this standard recursion theory language is understood both by computer scientists and mathematicians. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.] (]) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring == | |||
| == Indefinitely blocked == | |||
| Please know that simply reverting edits, rather than attempting to reach compromise, may be considered ], and is strongly discouraged. On a short-term basis, the ] three revert rule prohibits reverting more than three times within 24 hours. The ] policy prohibits slower edit wars as well. Rather than just reverting, and risking being blocked from editing as a result, I encourage you to work towards some compromise language. We have been discussing things on several talk pages; there is no need to revert the content pages as well. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked you as you've stated your intention clearly that you're going to carry on breaking the arbitration sanction against you. Should you decide that you're willing to work within the sanction, then put up an unblock request. Should you decide on doing that however and subsequently go on to break it further, you'll be reblocked for an indefinite period again. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{block}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= there is no edit warring. The reverts were always below 3RR and not particularly incendiary.|decline= As it says on ], you are not entitled to three reverts a day. You were warned against edit warring, but decided to persist. Your block will expire in 24 hours, so in the meantime I suggest you decide how you're going to discuss your editing on the talk page.— ] 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| :: Don't worry--- I will never ask to be unblocked. I think ArbCom members have a low intelligence, and I do not like you very much.] (]) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Please don't revert war. I've blocked you for 24 hours so you can cool down a bit. —'']'' 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in case I didn't make it clear above, when you've had chance to calm down and think about things, create and unblock request or send me an email and I'll unblock you if you decide you're going to work within the restriction. Indefinite does not have to equal infinite in this situation. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 09:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : There has been no revert war. I have reverted fewer than three times, and the reverts were all justified. Please familiarize yourself with the issues at hand before blocking. I have acted responsibly.] 18:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't think you really get the concept of "never". | |||
| == "Stealing credit" == | |||
| :::: This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ''ethics''. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are ''bad people'', and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object.] (]) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You said: | |||
| :Finally, this proof has the gall to pretend that Kleene et al. and alls y'all actually understood the relation between halting and Godel's theorem before you read the proof that I wrote. While, in hindsight, after a few weeks of bickering, it is clear to all you folks that quining and the fixed-point theorem are identical, that Godel and Halting are identical, none of you knew exactly how before I told you. If your going to use my insights, use my language and cite the paper I cited. The only reason this is not original research is because some dude wrote a paper in 1981, and because of the reference provided. To pretend that this proof is somehow implicit in the standard presentations is a credit-stealing lie. It was precisely because the standard presentations are so god-awful that I had to go to great lengths to come up with this one. | |||
| :::::Are you serious about thinking thatArbCom members are agents of Satan? ] (]) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| The relationship between Goedel's theorem and undecidable problems is extremely well known; your claim that your proof concept is somehow new comes across as a rant rather than as a clear argument. The edit warning explicitly warns yo that people will edit your text "mercilessly"; if you don't like that, Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. | |||
| : |
:::::: It's a metaphor. You don't need to act with self-aware evil to be an "agent of Satan", just an administratively minded person with no feeling for the bigger picture, you know, the banality of evil and all that.] (]) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Ryan, the arbcom ruling said a maximum block of one week, yet you have blocked Likebox indefinitely. Why is that? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.] (]) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| As to credit, your theorem was stated at least as early as 1943 by Kleene in "Recursive predicates and quantifiers". Theorem VIII states: | |||
| :::Your probably not around anymore but im just checking in just Incase you’re around ] (]) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"There is no complete formal deductive theory for the predicate <math>(x)\bar{T}_1(a,a,x)</math>." | |||
| ::Likebox made his intention very much clear that he was going to disrupt the project and disregard the sanction. There has been a commitment to carry on violating the rules, which just about always results in an indefinite block. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| As the T is Kleene's T predicate, this is exactly a statement about the halting problem. Kleene explicitly says: "This is the famous theorem of Gödel on formally undecidable propositions, in a generalized form." So there is really nothing from the 1970s or 1980s in your proof, just classical recursion theory. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 12:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yet banning someone from even debating an Arbcom matter could hardly be caiculated to enrage someone more, could it? Just because the result was inevitable does not make it just. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages is concerned with building an encyclopedia. Likebox has stated clearly that he's not here to build one, he's here to disrupt. Let's not shed tears for losing trolls. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 18:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==A question== | |||
| : Absolutely true, logically. Not true in terms of '''exposition'''. I agree that logically all this is due to Kleene, and I give him proper credit. I do not agree that the '''exposition''' is due to Kleene, and the exposition is important. If you don't think exposition matters, why do you keep reverting the exposition I gave to an exposition that is less precise?] 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I wonder if you good look at and comment? Seems to imply that photons can pass through a blocking filter. (I'll copy your comments into my talk page if that helps.)--] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: I like you Michael, but I cannot contribute to this project in good conscience. I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror.] (]) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Several different people have reverted your exposition, and I agree with them, because the exposition itself is what needs improvement. I have no disagreement with the ideas being included in the articles, but the exposition needs to be encyclopedic, match the rest of the article, and use standard terminology. I am confident we can find some compromise wording; but the wording you keep reverting to isn't it. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 19:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I kinda thought you might say that, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Your input will be sorely missed.--] <sup>]</sup> 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: In case you haven't noticed, I don't think that we will ever come to any sort of agreement. You feel the need to put in what you think is "standard terminology", whatever that means, and I am duty-bound to write a clear proof. Since it is in fact exactly the twaddle that you call "standard terminology" which makes the proof obscure, there is no point in any further discussion. I put my version in my talk page, for other people to read and make up their own minds. | |||
| == NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22 == | |||
| ::: The proof I gave is a very beautiful one. The only effect of your deletions is to make '''you''' look incompetent. I guarantee you that more people will learn GIT from this talk page than from your "rewrite".] 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="infobox" style="width:250px" | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| |''']''' | |||
| <br/>Next: ''']''' | |||
| <br/>Last: ] | |||
| <br/><span class="noprint plainlinksneverexpand" style="white-space:nowrap; font-size:xx-small">This box: ] <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span> ] <span style="font-size:80%;">•</span> </span> | |||
| |} | |||
| In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to ] activities, review the recent ''''']''''', plan for the next stages of projects like ''''']''''' and ''''']''''', and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the ]). | |||
| In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. | |||
| ::::The entire system at Misplaced Pages is founded on compromise. If you want to participate here you will need to work to build consensus for your preferred exposition, since it is clear that multiple people disagree with the way you have presented your ideas in the articles. Just declaring your intention to edit war or encouraging others to do so (as below) gives the appearance of bad faith. | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages is ''not'' the place to right the wrongs of the world, and that includes the wrongs you feel are perpetuated by the standard terminology of recursion theory. I hope you will stop edit warring and instead try to find some areas of agreement with other editors. This same sentiment has been expressed by Haemo and by Ruud Koot on this page. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at ]. | |||
| == I Am Annoyed By This Blocking == | |||
| To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our ].<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| This is unreasonable--- the disagreements are over content, and are a perfectly legitemate dispute. There are people on both sides. The reverts have been under 3RR, and they have not been reviewed by anybody. The disputed section in the form as I've inserted it yesterday was rewritten to incorporate suggestions of CBM, and this text requires a proper review. It was not a blind revert, and incorporated suggestions and criticisms. | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| The person who started all this deletion madness is "ceilingcrash", who ''changed his mind''.] 18:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I am appealing the sanctions on our gagg order. I haven't included you at this point since you have appeares to have walked away from the madness. If you would like to be included though please email me and I'll add you to the case and see about unblocking as it wouldn't be nec anyways. ] (]) 04:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Godel's Incompletness Theorem--- My Favorite Way == | |||
| ==] (2nd annual)== | |||
| I copied and pasted this section from Godel's Incompleteness theorems. It is the shortest self-contained complete proof in existence! I am very proud of it. There are two editors who keep reverting the proof off the page, so I invite other people with time on their hands to revert back. Since I am obviously not welcome on GIT, and since I have lost all respect for the active editors there, I will just keep this section in my talk page. Copy and paste it into ] if you like! | |||
| Our 2nd annual ''']''' has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at ]. | |||
| There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. '''''' here. And sign up ]. All are invited!<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I also put it here so that people can read it, because it's better than the whole rest of the page. Its useful if you want to actually learn the proof of the theorem without slogging through the brain-damaged crap in recursion theory textbooks. | |||
| == Notification of Arbitration Ammendment request to re-advocacy-ban you == | |||
| ===Notes=== | |||
| I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: ] | |||
| The idea of this proof is originally due to Kleene, who noted in 1943 that Turing's undecidability proof and Godel's proof are closely related. This was appreciated by Godel and Turing, although they did not bother to make the connection explicit. The technical exposition of Kleene's proof, however, was hampered by the primitive state of computer languages at the time he wrote. This is not at all Kleene's fault, since he was writing well before computers were common. The notion of '''quining''' was not yet standard, and so he needed to construct his own substitute. The notion of algorithm was also not as central as it is today, so the philosophy is unappealing to a modern reader. | |||
| ] (]) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Nonetheless, Kleene (along with Godel and Turing) deserves full credit for the logical ideas in the proof. The '''exposition''' is a different matter, since expositions can continue to evolve long after the ideas are settled down. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The first exposition which gives a proof of this kind (as far as I know) is by Arthur Charlesworth in 1981, cited below. Current recursion theorists like to pretend that their language is somehow good enough to capture the spirit of this proof, but this is just their way of defending their pompous obscurity. Although I can read their papers and follow their methods nowadays, it took me many ''years'' of struggle, and I would not wish that kind of mental torture on anybody, let alone a student. | |||
| Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! | |||
| I give you my word--- there is not a single shred of insight to be gained from learning any recursion theory. All the arguments in the recursion theory literature are made completely obvious when re-expressed as computer programs in a modern language. | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_2&oldid=812113507 --> | |||
| Recursion theory language is not sufficiently rich to be able to discuss quining well, and requires a series of odious lemmas to establish the existence of quines. This is the "recursion theorem" and the "fixed point theorem" of Kleene. This theorem states, in a cleverly encrypted way, that any computer program can be rewritten to first print its code, then do whatever else its going to do. Duh. | |||
| The exposition in most textbooks of Godel's theorem similarly encrypts the entire proof. The encryption key is jealously guarded by officious people who struggled to learn it and were too stupid to come up with a better proof on their own. Thankfully they are few in number, and most of them are old. They will probably die well before I do. | |||
| The '''exposition''' below is original, but follows the ideas of the 1981 paper by Charlesworth, based on Kleene's ideas, and a more recent preprint which reviews the argument as an aside. It's old wine in a new bottle. | |||
| Enjoy! | |||
| == Computational Proof == | |||
| Godel proved that there is an explicit algorithm to find all the consequences of a set of axioms. This algorithm can, in modern language, be represented as a ] running on an idealized infinite memory computer using an infinite-integer modification of the C programming language. Using the modern notions of computability, it is then easy to prove Godel's incompleteness theorem from basic ideas in computer science. | |||
| 1. The ]-- any computer program can include a subroutine that prints out the entire program's code. This allows any program to write itself into a string variable, or a large enough ]. | |||
| 2. The ]: There does not exist a computer program '''PREDICT(P)''' which takes the code to program '''P''' and predicts whether '''P''' eventually halts. | |||
| :'''proof''': Write program '''SPITE''', which prints itself into variable R, then calculates '''PREDICT(R)'''. If the answer is ''R halts'', Spite goes into an infinite loop. If the answer is ''R does not halt'', '''SPITE''' halts. Since R is really '''SPITE''' in disguise, no matter what '''PREDICT''' says, the answer is wrong. | |||
| The '''incompleteness theorem''': Suppose that an axiom system describes integers (or any other discrete structure), and that it has enough operations (addition and multiplication are sufficient) to describe the working of a computer. This means that the axioms will eventually prove all theorems of the form "Starting with memory contents X, after N steps of running, the memory of the computer will be Y", for any fixed integers X and N, and can state propositions of the form "For all N, the contents of the memory will have property P", where P is some fixed definite property, like "The first bit in memory is zero" or "the tenth bit is different then the third bit". | |||
| Such an axiom system is either inconsistent or incomplete. | |||
| :'''proof''': Write '''DEDUCE'''. '''DEDUCE''' first prints its own code into the variable ''R'', then it deduces all consequences of the axiom system. It searches for the theorem '''R never halts'''. Only if '''DEDUCE''' finds this theorem does it halt. | |||
| :If the axiom system proves that '''DEDUCE''' doesn't halt, it is inconsistent, because '''DEDUCE''' then halts, and the axioms will follow its operation until it halts and prove that it halts. So if the system is consistent, '''DEDUCE''' doesn't halt and the axioms cannot prove it. | |||
| :This argument doesn't explicitly demonstrate the incompleteness, because a consistent axiom system could still prove the ] theorem that '''DEDUCE''' halts (even though it doesn't) without contradiction. | |||
| :So write '''ROSSER''': '''ROSSER''' prints its code into R, and searches deductions for either 1. '''R prints something out''' or 2. '''R never prints anything out'''. If it finds 1, it halts without printing anything. If it finds 2, It prints "Hello World!" to the screen and halts. | |||
| :If the axiom system is consistent, it cannot prove either '''ROSSER eventually prints something''' nor the negation '''ROSSER does not print anything'''. So whatever its conclusions about '''DEDUCE''', the axiom system is incomplete. | |||
| To prove the second incompleteness theorem, note that if the axioms are consistent, it is easy to prove that '''DEDUCE''' does not halt. This means that if a consistent axiom system proves its own consistency then it will also prove that '''DEDUCE''' does not halt, which is impossible.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Arthur Charlesworth |title=A Proof of Godel's Theorem in Terms of Computer Programs |journal=Mathematics Magazine|volume=54 No. 3 |year=1981|pages=109-121}}</ref><ref> R. Maimon "The Computational Theory of Biological Function I", arXiv:q-bio/0503028</ref>. | |||
| ===References === | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
Latest revision as of 08:12, 21 May 2024
 Archives |
Don't bother, I'm gone.
Dude
Dude...i came late. Much love. You are awesome. -De Ferns Hans, Martha's Vineyard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.56.31 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Community de-adminship/RfC
In response to this edit of yours, I've removed the vote for two reasons. One, Brews ohare is specifically banned from posting in Misplaced Pages space. That is a decision of ArbCom. Regardless of our feelings about the decision, nobody has the authority to override that decision. Two, Brews Ohare's comments already exist, in struck form, between support votes 148 and 149. Your posting replicated his posting. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Brews
Guy's suggestion that you be banned from commenting on Brews is phrased tactlessly and disrespectfully. I understand your frustrations in this unfortunate situation, but as an outsider I was myself very nearly put off from trying to disentangle the threads and making my hopefully constructive suggestion regarding Brews. This was due to your (and a few others') frustrated but unhelpful contributions to the discussion. Unfortunately, I believe that the atmosphere you are contributing to encourages facile "solutions" like Ryan's, which are not fair but just strive to limit disruption any way possible. With that in mind, regardless of your frustration, would you consider voluntarily disengaging from the discussion for a few weeks? I don't think my own suggestion is brilliant in any way (nor as a non-admin could I in any way enforce it), but unless you disengage I don't see anything happening other than most noninvolved observers scrolling through to the next thread, leaving it to one of the hardline enforcers to just "clean up the mess" and eventually archive it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinp (talk • contribs) 12:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Motion
Hi Likebox, this is to let you know that I have proposed a restriction on you commenting or advocating for Brews ohare, amongst other things. You may find the motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motions regarding Speed of Light and Brews ohare. SirFozzie (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- And I have moved your comments to a new discussion section. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light
Per a motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:
- Brews ohare's topic ban is modified to expire in 90 days from the date that this motion passes. The supplementary restrictions of Brews ohare (namely, restrictions from posting on physics related disputes or the Misplaced Pages/Wikipedia talk namespaces) will also expire 90 days from the date that this motion passes. Brews ohare is instructed that continued violations of his existing restrictions will lead to the 90 day timer being reset in additional to any discretionary enforcement action taken.
- Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
This was most probably trolling, but the restriction was quite clear - don't discuss Brews ohare. Your post to my talk page was merely an attempt to antagonise the situation and test administrators willingness to act on the motion, so have 24 hours off. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- No--- you see, I am just an opposite sort of person, which means that I always do the opposite of what people tell me to do! So the only thing I will ever talk about is Brews ohare from this point on. That and, also, I don't like you very much, and ArbCom members have a low intelligence.Likebox (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Howdy fuckers
Hey, guys, Brews OHARE! I won't stop talking about BREWS OHARE! It's like TOURETTE's SYNDROME! Wow, you're going to have to block me forever and ever and ever. Gosh, folks, BREWS OHARE. I LOVE THAT GUY.Likebox (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You know what I was thinking about this? I was thinking BREWS OHARE! Wouldn't it be great if he could chip in!Likebox (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you need to block me here too, to stop me from TALKING ABOUT BREWS OHARE (which I most assuredly promise you will be the only thing I will ever talk about here from here til eternity).Likebox (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You're giving them what they want. prove to them they are worng. It's the only way anyone can win right now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't give a shit what "they" want--- I don't want "them" to have the benefit of my participation on Misplaced Pages, and I want it to be on the record that they banned me for talking about Brews ohare, which I will continue to do until they ban me.Likebox (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
More Brews!!
Ohare, ohare! Oh where the Brews ohare is the Brews ohare?!! Why Brews.Likebox (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
- Considering you've expressed a desire to continue trolling over this, it likely won't be too hard to get this bumped up to indef. AniMate 03:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate it.Likebox (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.Likebox (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked
I've gone ahead and indefinitely blocked you as you've stated your intention clearly that you're going to carry on breaking the arbitration sanction against you. Should you decide that you're willing to work within the sanction, then put up an unblock request. Should you decide on doing that however and subsequently go on to break it further, you'll be reblocked for an indefinite period again. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry--- I will never ask to be unblocked. I think ArbCom members have a low intelligence, and I do not like you very much.Likebox (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in case I didn't make it clear above, when you've had chance to calm down and think about things, create and unblock request or send me an email and I'll unblock you if you decide you're going to work within the restriction. Indefinite does not have to equal infinite in this situation. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you really get the concept of "never".
- This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ethics. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are bad people, and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object.Likebox (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Are you serious about thinking thatArbCom members are agents of Satan? Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's a metaphor. You don't need to act with self-aware evil to be an "agent of Satan", just an administratively minded person with no feeling for the bigger picture, you know, the banality of evil and all that.Likebox (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Ryan, the arbcom ruling said a maximum block of one week, yet you have blocked Likebox indefinitely. Why is that? --Michael C. Price 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.Likebox (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your probably not around anymore but im just checking in just Incase you’re around Maestrofin (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Likebox made his intention very much clear that he was going to disrupt the project and disregard the sanction. There has been a commitment to carry on violating the rules, which just about always results in an indefinite block. Ryan Postlethwaite 08:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yet banning someone from even debating an Arbcom matter could hardly be caiculated to enrage someone more, could it? Just because the result was inevitable does not make it just. --Michael C. Price 13:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's so that I don't have to go around violating my sanctions every week to have the block extended. I have no intention of complying, not now, not ever.Likebox (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
A question
I wonder if you good look at and comment? Seems to imply that photons can pass through a blocking filter. (I'll copy your comments into my talk page if that helps.)--Michael C. Price 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I like you Michael, but I cannot contribute to this project in good conscience. I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror.Likebox (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I kinda thought you might say that, and I'm very sorry to hear it. Your input will be sorely missed.--Michael C. Price 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
NYC Misplaced Pages Meetup Saturday, May 22
|
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Misplaced Pages Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Misplaced Pages and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey
I am appealing the sanctions on our gagg order. I haven't included you at this point since you have appeares to have walked away from the madness. If you would like to be included though please email me and I'll add you to the case and see about unblocking as it wouldn't be nec anyways. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of Arbitration Ammendment request to re-advocacy-ban you
I have filed a request to ammend the Speed of light arbitration case to reimpose the advocacy ban on you and other users. See: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Speed_of_light
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!