tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.comments2022-09-22T01:46:17.706-04:00RecursivityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12255125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24506186560193211992022-09-09T10:27:53.648-04:002022-09-09T10:27:53.648-04:00Did you not understand "Time for you to go el...Did you not understand "Time for you to go elsewhere"?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74987141388495206162022-08-06T11:12:48.040-04:002022-08-06T11:12:48.040-04:00As a 'mathematician'? I see you have a lot...As a 'mathematician'? I see you have a lot in common with Leonard Euler in so far as he worked for Catherine the Great, whilst you undoubtedly have worked in the Kremlin.<br />Unlike Leonard Euler is the fact that he was mathematically honest.<br />Puuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!Alastair Batemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395447443056931757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-57709552993790604722022-08-04T12:40:12.727-04:002022-08-04T12:40:12.727-04:00You seem extremely confused. Being a square has ...You seem extremely confused. Being a square has virtually nothing to do with being the sum of two squares.<br /><br />I am afraid I have no possible remedy for this level of confusion and word salad like "both therefore plot as a series of dots which must either diverge and never meet or converge and at the point of intersection two dots will either coincide or not as the case may be". <br /><br />Time for you to go elsewhere. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77241213849559588222022-07-29T09:14:52.284-04:002022-07-29T09:14:52.284-04:00My dear Jeffrey, for a mathematics professor you c...My dear Jeffrey, for a mathematics professor you couldn't have picked a worse example to produce a smoke screen to cloud the issue.<br />The Fibonacci numbers and the squares are in the context of our discussion discrete quantities, namely integers, and would both therefore plot as a series of dots which must either diverge and never meet or converge and at the point of intersection two dots will either coincide or not as the case may be. In the case you have given they coincide exactly.<br />The coincidence is not just chance, far from it, but due to the most important of ALL MATHEMATICAL THEOREMS, the Pythagoras theorem.<br />You will find if you take the trouble to investigate that the Fibonacci numbers have factors that result in a continuous, alternating and innate modularity of 4n+1 then 4n+3 ad infinitum. Hence as Fermat stated all numbers of modularity 4n+1 are the sum of two squares. Now every integer is the difference of two squares. FACT. So all the F.Nos that include a factor of modularity 4n+3 can only be the difference of two squares.<br />Now we have 89,144,233 were 89 and 233 have modularity 4n+1 so that 89=8^2+3^2 and 233=13^2+8^2. Now 144 has factor 3 of modularity 4n+3 so that 144=13^2-5^2 alias 13^2=12^2+5^2 the second primitive Pythagorean triple. Can you spot the pattern for the base numbers. So if we express every F.No. as the square root squared then every one forms a Pythagoras equation. Pythagorean triples are the templet for the Fermat equation and there is an infinity of infinite series of them, all a consequence of Fermats 4n+1 theorem and the maths for producing them being well defined, known and wholly dependent on triangular numbers no less. Where's the maths for the Fermat triples?<br /><br />Now z^(2n+1) can be expanded by the binomial theorem as (a+b)^n as many times as there are binary partitions of (a+b)=z. Likewise for z=(c-d). These expansions are characteristied by precisely defined coefficients that are generated in a precise prescribed manner by the combination formula and by precisely prescibed finite difference formulas that terminate in a constant term that is a precisely prescribed factorial.<br />Now x^(2n+1)+y^(2n+1) is divisible by (x+y) ALWAYS giving binomial number expansions of the form x^2-xy+y^2 and x^4-x^3y+x^2y^2-xy^3+y^4 for the 3rd and 5th powers respectively. I call these expansions 'slip knot equations' because just as pulling the two ends of the knot causes the knot to disappear, so too does multiplying through the expansion by x and y where we just raise the power of the first and last terms and we get duplicate internal terms but of opposite sign which all cancel out just leaving the original expression we started with before division by (x+y).<br />What else can the algebra do? What else would a truly knowledgable mathematician expect?<br />The two are truly the mathematical antithesis of each other and if this doesn't constitute proof then I don't know what does since it is an absolute truth.<br />So to answer your question 'What are mathematically different beasts'. Why the binomial theorem expansion and the binomial number expansions and NO your generalisation for the F.Nos and squares do not qualify as 'mathematically different beasts'.<br />Perhaps the FICTIOUS Frey equation and Fermat triples qualify to be descibed as 'mathematically different beasts' but then I must step back and leave that one upto you since the Frey equation is part of your mathematical reality but certainly not part of mine.<br />So fine I'm a crank and what I do is crackpottery or in some one elses eyes a crock of pooh but fine cause like a pig I'm happy to wallow in the mire that is my mathematical realisations of reality and truth and not those of intellectual elitists who live in abject fear of being proved wrong and would never, ever admit to it.Alastair Batemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395447443056931757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13720974016635111012022-07-29T04:31:47.899-04:002022-07-29T04:31:47.899-04:00I see lots of babble, but still no calculation. W...I see lots of babble, but still no calculation. Why are ID advocates so afraid to produce some numbers? William Dembski did one calculation in his book, and it was off by 60 orders of magnitude.<br /><br />Provide the calculation showing that, and I quote, "a picture of Mount Rushmore with the busts of four US Presidents contains more information than a picture of Mount Fuji".<br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68744073527548574212022-07-28T20:29:09.130-04:002022-07-28T20:29:09.130-04:00So, what is your complaint? We can use an approxi...So, what is your complaint? We can use an approximation of Kolmogorov complexity to calculate an information measure for the photos. As we discuss previously in this thread, we can also use Kolmogorov's randomness deficiency metric, which is the same thing as ASC. There's no problem with Dr. Mark's claim. It's well supported by Kolmogorov's well known work.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58571138453210703202022-07-28T19:59:51.540-04:002022-07-28T19:59:51.540-04:00"Also you are wrong. Less compressible does n..."Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not mean more Kolmogorov information, since compression is just an upper bound on Kolmogorov information."<br /><br />Yes, thank you for telling me a basic result of Kolmogorov complexity that I teach every year in my course, which is that compression algorithms can only provide an upper bound. <br /><br />"compression doesn't tell you at all which has more Kolmogorov information"<br /><br />Every compression algorithm gives you a computable approximation, which is provably the best we can do. It is unreasonable to expect more, and the compression algorithms we have have proved very useful -- much more useful than Dembski's nonsense. See, for example, Ming Li's work on chain letters.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-68757778927817702722022-07-28T19:55:11.390-04:002022-07-28T19:55:11.390-04:00"So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmor..."So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji?"<br /><br />Why did you stop beating your wife?<br /><br />If your question is based on a lie, don't expect an answer.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61319297888869320802022-07-28T19:49:58.453-04:002022-07-28T19:49:58.453-04:00Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not me...Also you are wrong. Less compressible does not mean more Kolmogorov information, since compression is just an upper bound on Kolmogorov information. One compression algorithm may say Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji, and another algorithm may say the reverse, and a third may say they are equal. So, compression doesn't tell you at all which has more Kolmogorov information.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59166427713962474152022-07-28T19:47:51.269-04:002022-07-28T19:47:51.269-04:00So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is l...So why do you think a picture of Mt. Rushmore is less compressible than Mt. Fuji?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24976609174136303582022-07-28T17:32:45.368-04:002022-07-28T17:32:45.368-04:00If you're talking about Kolmogorov information...If you're talking about Kolmogorov information, it's not computable in general. But one could estimate it by taking the particular photographs in question and trying to compress them. Larger result = more information.<br /><br />Marks's claims about "meaningful information" are gobbledygook, since there is no rigorous definition of what "meaningful information", nor any agreement about how to compute it. If there were, he could do the calculation he asserted.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46335182969595552172022-07-28T15:56:03.122-04:002022-07-28T15:56:03.122-04:00How would you do the calculation Dr. Shallit?How would you do the calculation Dr. Shallit?Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29166847490742741232022-07-28T15:35:37.203-04:002022-07-28T15:35:37.203-04:00I listened to it.
Marks could not justify his c...I listened to it. <br /><br />Marks could not justify his claim at all. All he did was reassert it by saying, "It's obvious."<br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26574480986836379982022-07-28T15:31:14.209-04:002022-07-28T15:31:14.209-04:00Wow, four mistakes in one sentence.
They misspell...Wow, four mistakes in one sentence.<br /><br />They misspelled my name.<br /><br />I'm not in Toronto.<br /><br />Actually, I didn't make any claims at all about Mount Rushmore versus Mount Fuji at all. I asked for Dr. Marks to demonstrate his claim with a calculation.<br /><br />And the discussion was not about the mountains, but rather <b>pictures</b> of the two mountains.<br /><br />So incredibly sloppy, but that's what we expect from "Mind Matters News".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61325084578813128682022-07-28T15:10:38.971-04:002022-07-28T15:10:38.971-04:00Andrea: the fact that there are 72 different vers...Andrea: the fact that there are 72 different versions of your paper does not exactly inspire anyone with confidence in your work.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63550601319794587252022-07-28T15:01:14.829-04:002022-07-28T15:01:14.829-04:00Alastair: What are "mathematically differen...Alastair: What are "mathematically different beasts" and where is your proof that two "mathematically different beasts" can never have the same value?<br /><br />It's like saying "the Fibonacci numbers and integer squares are `mathematically different beasts' and therefore no Fibonacci number can be a square". Oops, we have F(12) = 144 = 12^2.<br /><br />It's pure crackpottery! Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-92053786813454570152022-06-30T17:52:34.066-04:002022-06-30T17:52:34.066-04:00And now we learn that I was correct, and the naysa...And now we learn that I was correct, and the naysayers, some of whom left nasty comments anonymously, were wrong.<br /><br />See <a href="https://www.forensicmag.com/570262-Genetic-Genealogy-Confirms-Story-of-Alex-Kurzem-the-Nazi-s-Little-Jewish-Mascot/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15250981705261427092022-05-23T12:31:30.219-04:002022-05-23T12:31:30.219-04:00Dear Prof. J. Shalit
try to read the first paper ...Dear Prof. J. Shalit<br /><br />try to read the first paper contained<br />in work https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.06335<br /><br />You will see that Fermat had certainly not lied.<br /><br />Sincerely.<br /><br />Andrea OssiciniAndrea Ossicinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01031858112765911874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77338580818259104272022-02-27T15:34:40.975-05:002022-02-27T15:34:40.975-05:00Jeffrey, please accept my profound, profound apolo...Jeffrey, please accept my profound, profound apologies for my audacity in contaminating the pages of your 'BLOG' but I feel it can't be avoided as I need your HONEST and professional evaluation of the following SIMPLE ALGEBRA.<br />If we take the equation z^(2n+1) = y^(2n+1) + x^(2n+1) then z^(2n+1) = (a+b)^(2n+1) for every (a + b ) = z every one of which can be expanded by the well established BINOMIAL THEOREM.<br /><br />Now y^(2n+1) + x^(2n+1) is divisible by (x+y) ALWAYS resulting in two factors the second of which is an algebraic expansion commonly referred as the BINOMIAL NUMBERS, of which I am sure you are very well aware.<br /><br />Now it is blatantly obvious to any halfwit or crank like myself that the BINOMIAL THEOREM EXPANSION and the BINOMIAL NUMBERS EXPANSION can never be equal being two mathematically different beasts hence z^(2n+1) = y^(2n+1) + x^(2n+1) is FALSE therefore FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM is TRUE.<br /><br />Pray what do you have to say about that?Alastair Batemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14395447443056931757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61807161165263402592022-01-12T17:31:53.509-05:002022-01-12T17:31:53.509-05:00TV is on fire
vs
fire is on TVTV is on fire<br />vs<br />fire is on TVAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03955613102555674587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56336279855667263562022-01-07T06:46:46.830-05:002022-01-07T06:46:46.830-05:00The illustrious Robert Marks has, in a way, respon...The illustrious Robert Marks has, in a way, responded to the challenge. In the podcast “Define information before you talk about it: Egnor interviews Marks” at the site “Mind Matters News”, Michael Egnor says (according to the transcript):<br /><br />“Dr. Jeffrey Shallot, who is a mathematician in Toronto, claims that Mount Rushmore doesn't have any more information than Mount Fuji. I'd like to ask my guest today Dr. Robert Marks to answer that question”.<br /><br />Which is, of course, a lie. And, of course, Dr. Marks does not say anything about his (nonexistent) calculations. The discussion starts at 24:40 here: https://mindmatters.ai/podcast/ep158/<br /><br />Enjoy.Larshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04163059589607014064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75416163282101468962021-10-04T17:28:56.510-04:002021-10-04T17:28:56.510-04:00His mathematics is really bad, as the articles I h...His mathematics is really bad, as the articles I have written show. He made trivial computation errors that led him to overestimate a probability by something like 60 orders of magnitude. His "theory" has proven to have no significant applications, despite the ridiculous and grandiose claims made for it.<br /><br />Most mathematicians don't claim their work is revolutionary, while simultaneously not being cited by almost anyone who works in the field they claim to be an expert in.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38409537720315590402021-10-04T15:29:59.672-04:002021-10-04T15:29:59.672-04:00Nope, Dembski's work is not cited often outsid...Nope, Dembski's work is not cited often outside of ID circles except to criticize. Which I find odd since all of his mathematics is very conventional, as we have discussed regarding CSI and randomness deficiency.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-50208124218586074572021-10-04T13:57:53.436-04:002021-10-04T13:57:53.436-04:00But none of them are citing Dembski's work, ar...But none of them are citing Dembski's work, are they? Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38652890852660277932021-10-04T12:31:34.670-04:002021-10-04T12:31:34.670-04:00There are a decent number of articles applying ran...There are a decent number of articles applying randomness deficiency to detect intelligent design, for instance network intrusion detection.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14871265628418270341noreply@blogger.com