Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Marshall Clow]

[ I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but there might be someone out there who could 
benefit from this. ]

Tyler Durden wrote:
>Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a dependence 
>that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we seem to be so 
>addicted to our current lifestyle that we would rather launch wars rather than face 
>our internal issues.

You blithely say "if we put our minds to it", as if that were a simple thing.
[ Hint: Minds have been "put to it" before. ]

For your amusement, here are a few dates from history:

November 7, 1973
President Nixon launches Project Independence, with the goal of achieving 
energy self-sufficiency by 1980.

April 18, 1977
President Carter announces National Energy Plan in his first major energy 
speech.
Goal is to reduce oil imports by 65%, and to reduce energy growth to 2%/year.

March 17, 1987
President Reagan's Energy Security Report outlines the
Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil.

February 20, 1991
President Bush presents the Department's National Energy Strategy
to Congress and the American people.
-- 
-- Marshall

Marshall Clow Idio Software   
Hey! Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:10:13AM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Gary Jeffers writes:
> 
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> > Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> > theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
> >
> >  The beneficiaries of this war are:
> >
> > 1. United State:
> >
> > 2. Corporations, connected.
> >
> > 3. The ruling elite families.
> >
> > 4. The Zionists.
> 
> Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
> do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
> initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
> Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
> someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

Right, and I can do better things with your money than you can, so why
shouldn't I just kill you and take it? 

> 
> He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
> and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
> 100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.
> 
> How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
> Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?
> 
   I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft. 



> A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
> world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
> repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

   A far better idea is for the UN to invade the US, depose it's evil,
warmongering leader, destroy all the WOMD, and free the oppressed populace. 

(rest of absurd rant snipped)


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: Codetalking in the South Pacific?

[Tyler Durden]

Oh yeah, another thing I wanted to ask about, before I forget.

It's somewhat well-known that throughout the South pacific, there are "radio 
stations" that do nothing but broadcast the real-time reading of number 
sequences, but no one seems to know just why. And these number sequences do 
not seem to be recordings...every station has a different voice, and the 
number sequences never repeat. So it would seem that they are being read in 
real time by natives employed at various islands.

Anyone know what the heck those things are? There's actually a 3-CD 
collection available of the number broadcasts.







From: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Codetalking, private business, harassment, EEOC, freedom of   
speech/association
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:01:25 -0800

[Summary: Navajo is banned by employer because employees are being rude
in that language.
So the EEOC objects.  Ironies: Navajo, codetalkers, feds.  EEOC
harassing employer who is trying to prevent harassment (in Navajo) of
others.]



English group enters Navajo language fray

From the National Desk
Published 11/12/2002 5:59 PM
View printer-friendly version

PHOENIX, Nov. 12 (UPI) -- The legal dispute over an Arizona restaurant's
rule banning employees from
speaking Navajo on the job drew the participation Tuesday of a national
organization that advocates English
as the official language of the United States. The suit was the first
filed by the EEOC to involve a Native
American language.


http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021112-044422-7977r

[Libscoop: since neither employers nor employees should be coerced, the
employers can morally
require what they want, and the employees can shop for employment
uncoerced too.  Meddling
DC-bureaucrats should be tomahawked at the door; after being told to
leave in Esperanto.]


_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Mike Rosing]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Sam Ritchie wrote:

> That's the whole deal with the bible, and its various internal
> contradictions. If anything can be proven true in the bible, then there's no
> room for faith anymore, which nullifies religious "beliefs"; and if anything
> can be proven false, then there's no god, and religion is crushed under the
> heel of reason. Hurrah, Enlightenment!
> ~SAM

Don't bet on it.  I was in a discussion group a week or so ago and one
lady who is super devout (of some christian sect, I'm not really sure
which one) claimed that she was always "testing her faith" every day.
It really shook me up because I have faith in testing.  Religion and
reason are not in the same universe!

My favorite response on the subject of god is "I have no need of that
hypothisis".  I forget who it's attributed to, but I think it was from the
late 1800's.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Sam Ritchie]

> From: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:12:34 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto
> 
> "All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
> but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
> :-)"
> 
> I've wondered about that...I suspect that if God exists, then He is true but
> unprovable in any useful system!
> 
> -TD
> 
That's the whole deal with the bible, and its various internal
contradictions. If anything can be proven true in the bible, then there's no
room for faith anymore, which nullifies religious "beliefs"; and if anything
can be proven false, then there's no god, and religion is crushed under the
heel of reason. Hurrah, Enlightenment!
~~SAM

> PS: According to Godel's biographer, Godel at one point passed around a
> proof of the existence of God! (But towards the end of his life he also
> started wearing a surgical mask everywhere and became intensely
> germaphobic...)
> 
> 
> 
>> From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto
>> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
>> 
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
>> 
>>> Damn what a pack of geeks! (Looks like I might end up liking this list!)
>> 
>> It's full of nut cases too :-)
>> 
>>> I have not, however, heretofore considered that there could exist
>> systems
>>> that had some form of completeness built in. My intuition (which is
>> easily
>>> wrong) tells me that no such system could ever be useful in the real
>> world,
>>> but who the heck knows?
>> 
>> All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
>> but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
>> :-)
>> 
>> Patience, persistence, truth,
>> Dr. mike
> 
> 
> _
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Jim Choate]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

> Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >
> > What I'd like to know is does Godel's apply to all forms of
> > para-consistent logic as well
>
> And I replied:
>
> No. There are consistent systems, and complete systems, that do not admit
> Godel's theorem, but apparently not a system that is both (although even the
> last is subject to dispute, and problems of definition).

Which is the point of Godel's, you're arguing in circles here son. Perhaps
you've been out in the sun too long ;)

[SSZ: text deleted]

> However you can have eg arithmetics without Peano counting, and so on, and
> there are ("trivial" according to Godel, but even he acknowledged that they
> exist) systems that are both complete (all problems have answers) and
> consistent (no statement is both true and false).

[SSZ: text deleted]

> Can you do interesting things in such systems? Yes. But you tend to leave
> intuition behind.

What the hell does 'counting' have to do with para-consistent logic on
this? Extraordinary claims...

Para-consistent logic is logic where statements -can't by definition- be
given an absolute true/false, in fact para-consistent logic allows
axiomatic statements that are in direct conflict. The 'para' comes
from 'paradox'.

Considering the state of the real world I doubt you'd leave very much
'intuition behind' by moving to a para-consistent model.

The answer of course is "Yes, Godel's applies to Para-Consistent Logic".

Irrespective of whatever logic you wish to use, it will be sensitive to
Godel's because Godel's is a sort of halting theorem that says that with
respect to decidability you can't devise an algorithm in any language or
representation that will -guarentee- and answer to the question of whether
a particular question has an answer. Godel's applies irrespective of the
contents of any given system, paradoxical or consistent be damned.

What really matters is the 'complete', not the 'consistent'. Godel's
doesn't apply to incomplete systems because by definition there are
statements which can be made which can't be expressed, otherwise it would
be complete. You can't prove something if you can't express it since there
is no way to get the machine to 'hold' it to work on it.


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Nomen Nescio]

Gary Jeffers writes:

>The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
>  The beneficiaries of this war are:
>
> 1. United State:
>
> 2. Corporations, connected.
>
> 3. The ruling elite families.
>
> 4. The Zionists.

Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.

How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?

A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

The mere fact that you feel free to criticize the U.S., but would never
go to Iraq and criticize Hussein just proves the point.  Sure, freedom
of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and the degree of protection has
fluctuated; during WWI people were sent to jail for criticizing the draft,
but we're nowhere near that point now.

But these freedoms are non-existant in Iraq, China, and other countries
which are the real threat to peace and freedom in the coming decades.
Look at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3235 which describes
a case in neighboring Iran where a respected academic was sentenced
to DEATH for saying that Muslims should not blindly obey the Imams.
These are the forces which are trying to assert their dominance over
the world as we move into this new century.  We either stand by and
let it happen, condemning future generations to lives of suffering,
poverty and ignorance, or we take steps to stop it, defending Western
culture and its ideals of freedom.

That's what's really at stake here.  We're fighting over which ideology
will control the world.  And yes, oil is a potent weapon in this struggle.
Leaving those vast oil resources in the hands of conservative Muslims
would be a huge mistake from the perspective of this decades-long war.

So let's agree with Gary Jeffers: Beat State!  But the state we must
beat is the state of religious persecution and dictatorship practiced by
Hussein.  If we hold all states to the same standard instead of heaping
criticism only on one, we will see that Iraq is far more deserving of
condemnation than most.  Their government deserves to be beaten, to be
destroyed.  It would be the finest gift we could give to the Iraqi people.

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Tyler Durden]

"How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?"

Can't answer that directly, aside from pointing out that theUS is largely 
responsible for Hussein's rise to power. I could be argued that oil in our 
hands has created many a Saddam.

Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a 
dependence that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we 
seem to be so addicted to our current lifestyle that we would rather launch 
wars rather than face our internal issues.

Anyone guess where's Waldo (Osama) now? My guess he's on the end of a bungee 
being kicked into Iraq right now! (The other end of the bungee is in a US 
chopper!)




From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil.  
Who's ne
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 03:10:13 +0100 (CET)

Gary Jeffers writes:

>The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we 
get
> Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
>  The beneficiaries of this war are:
>
> 1. United State:
>
> 2. Corporations, connected.
>
> 3. The ruling elite families.
>
> 4. The Zionists.

Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.

How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?

A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

The mere fact that you feel free to criticize the U.S., but would never
go to Iraq and criticize Hussein just proves the point.  Sure, freedom
of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and the degree of protection has
fluctuated; during WWI people were sent to jail for criticizing the draft,
but we're nowhere near that point now.

But these freedoms are non-existant in Iraq, China, and other countries
which are the real threat to peace and freedom in the coming decades.
Look at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3235 which describes
a case in neighboring Iran where a respected academic was sentenced
to DEATH for saying that Muslims should not blindly obey the Imams.
These are the forces which are trying to assert their dominance over
the world as we move into this new century.  We either stand by and
let it happen, condemning future generations to lives of suffering,
poverty and ignorance, or we take steps to stop it, defending Western
culture and its ideals of freedom.

That's what's really at stake here.  We're fighting over which ideology
will control the world.  And yes, oil is a potent weapon in this struggle.
Leaving those vast oil resources in the hands of conservative Muslims
would be a huge mistake from the perspective of this decades-long war.

So let's agree with Gary Jeffers: Beat State!  But the state we must
beat is the state of religious persecution and dictatorship practiced by
Hussein.  If we hold all states to the same standard instead of heaping
criticism only on one, we will see that Iraq is far more deserving of
condemnation than most.  Their government deserves to be beaten, to be
destroyed.  It would be the finest gift we could give to the Iraqi people.


_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

   Hmm, interesting -- how come the original of this came never came thru
lne.com? And I think there's been at least a couple of others lately that I only
saw in someone quote -- wasn't 100% sure about them, but I am this one. 


> Gary Jeffers writes:
> 
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> > Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> > theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
> >
> >  The beneficiaries of this war are:
> >
> > 1. United State:
> >
> > 2. Corporations, connected.
> >
> > 3. The ruling elite families.
> >
> > 4. The Zionists.
> 




-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: CDR: Re: Codetalking in the South Pacific?

[Marc de Piolenc]

The ones we used to hear on the shortwave in Europe were enciphered
transmissions to agents from their controllers. Most of the numbers
broadcasts originated in the East Bloc, but there's no reason to suppose
that the West didn't use them for agent communications as well.

At least in the Russians' case, the cipher keys were one-time pads
issued to the agents in personal meetings or through dead drops - a key
element of vulnerability in their networks.

Marc de Piolenc

Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> Oh yeah, another thing I wanted to ask about, before I forget.
> 
> It's somewhat well-known that throughout the South pacific, there are "radio
> stations" that do nothing but broadcast the real-time reading of number
> sequences, but no one seems to know just why.

RE: "Emergency Coercive Unit"

[Lucky Green]

Tyler wrote:
> b) Downstairs and across the street in front of Starbucks I 
> just saw two NYC 
> cops holding what looked like AK-47s...on their backs it said 
> "Emergency 
> Coercive Unit".

A URL with pictures of that team would be appreciated.

--Lucky

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Ben Laurie]

Jim Choate wrote:

What I'd like to know is does Godel's apply to all forms of
para-consistent logic as well


It applies to "any sufficiently complex axiomatic system". Allegedly.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html   http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

Re: "Emergency Coercive Unit"

[Kevin Elliott]

At 10:59 -0500  on  11/13/02, Tyler Durden wrote:

b) Downstairs and across the street in front of Starbucks I just saw 
two NYC >cops holding what looked like AK-47s...on their backs it 
said "Emergency >Coercive Unit".

I always knew New York was full of commie bastards.  I thought they 
were smart enough to hide themselves behind good capitalist weapons. 
Like an AR-15 or an MP-5.  3
--
_
Kevin Elliott  ICQ#23758827

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Tyler Durden]

Damn what a pack of geeks! (Looks like I might end up liking this list!)

When we say "complete", are we talking about completeness in the Godelian 
sense? According to Godel, and formal system (except for the possibility of 
the oddballs mentioned below--I hadn't heard of this possibility) is 
"incomplete" in that there will exist true statements that can not be proven 
given the axioms of that system. This does not have to be anything 
complex...a statement like 2+2=4 in some systems may be obviously true, but 
there's no way to "get there" given the other axioms in the system. This 
statement must then be added to the axiom list.

After that (old axioms +(the 2+2=4 axiom)), we now have a "new" formal 
system, and there will (not might!) exist another statement that is true but 
unprovable, and so on. In a sense, then, no system is ever "complete".

As for the nature of the system in which Godelian Incompleteness applies, 
I'm not enough of a number theorist to remember. BUT...in Turing terms I 
know that any system that is equivalent to a Turing Machine will have the 
Incompleteness property. (In addition, Godelian Provability is equivalent, I 
think, to the Turing Halting Problem. Statements that are true but 
unprovable will never halt...correct?)In other words, any system that can be 
used for useful computation will suffer from incompletenenss, so I would 
assume "para-consistent logic" would fall under that category (is that 
similar to fuzzy logic?).

I have not, however, heretofore considered that there could exist systems 
that had some form of completeness built in. My intuition (which is easily 
wrong) tells me that no such system could ever be useful in the real world, 
but who the heck knows?





From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:27:44 -0600 (CST)

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

> Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >
> > What I'd like to know is does Godel's apply to all forms of
> > para-consistent logic as well
>
> And I replied:
>
> No. There are consistent systems, and complete systems, that do not 
admit
> Godel's theorem, but apparently not a system that is both (although even 
the
> last is subject to dispute, and problems of definition).

Which is the point of Godel's, you're arguing in circles here son. Perhaps
you've been out in the sun too long ;)

[SSZ: text deleted]

> However you can have eg arithmetics without Peano counting, and so on, 
and
> there are ("trivial" according to Godel, but even he acknowledged that 
they
> exist) systems that are both complete (all problems have answers) and
> consistent (no statement is both true and false).

[SSZ: text deleted]

> Can you do interesting things in such systems? Yes. But you tend to 
leave
> intuition behind.

What the hell does 'counting' have to do with para-consistent logic on
this? Extraordinary claims...

Para-consistent logic is logic where statements -can't by definition- be
given an absolute true/false, in fact para-consistent logic allows
axiomatic statements that are in direct conflict. The 'para' comes
from 'paradox'.

Considering the state of the real world I doubt you'd leave very much
'intuition behind' by moving to a para-consistent model.

The answer of course is "Yes, Godel's applies to Para-Consistent Logic".

Irrespective of whatever logic you wish to use, it will be sensitive to
Godel's because Godel's is a sort of halting theorem that says that with
respect to decidability you can't devise an algorithm in any language or
representation that will -guarentee- and answer to the question of whether
a particular question has an answer. Godel's applies irrespective of the
contents of any given system, paradoxical or consistent be damned.

What really matters is the 'complete', not the 'consistent'. Godel's
doesn't apply to incomplete systems because by definition there are
statements which can be made which can't be expressed, otherwise it would
be complete. You can't prove something if you can't express it since there
is no way to get the machine to 'hold' it to work on it.


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org




_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

"Emergency Coercive Unit"

[Tyler Durden]

a) Those friggin' war-posters are hilarious.

b) Downstairs and across the street in front of Starbucks I just saw two NYC 
cops holding what looked like AK-47s...on their backs it said "Emergency 
Coercive Unit".



_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 09:12  AM, Tyler Durden wrote:


"All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
:-)"

I've wondered about that...I suspect that if God exists, then He is 
true but unprovable in any useful system!

-TD

PS: According to Godel's biographer, Godel at one point passed around 
a proof of the existence of God! (But towards the end of his life he 
also started wearing a surgical mask everywhere and became intensely 
germaphobic...)


There are a lot of Godel anecdotes to tell. I never met him.

Two things about his theory:

1. There's a more powerful (IMNSHO) formulation of it in terms of 
algorithmic information theory, usually associated with Greg Chaitin 
but also drawing on the AIT work of Kolmogorov and others. This says, 
in informal language, "no theory can describe something more 
complicated than itself." If a theory has 20 bits of complexity, things 
of 21 bits or more just can't be "described/proved." Rudy Rucker has a 
good description of this in his excellent book "Mind Tools." And 
Chaitin has authored several books and a few very readable "Scientific 
American" types of articles. Google will have more on his sites, his 
papers.

2. This said, my point about not looking to Godelian undecidability 
sorts of issues for crypto is that it just appears to be "too far out 
there." Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever found a way to make such 
things useful in crypto...not even things like "Presburger arithmetic," 
which is "harder" than NP-complete but not yet Godelian undecideable.

(One semi-joke is that Godel's results are something every 
mathematician should learn about but that no working mathematician will 
ever actually need to use.)

--Tim May

Re: Yodels, new anonymous e-currency

[James A. Donald]

The Yodel does not have a web site where yodels can be converted into 
some other form of money, and other forms of money converted into 
Yodels.

Instead it has an IIRC bot.   Use of this bot is described at 
http://yodel.deep-ice.com/bankbot.html

This means a command line interface, to do banking transactions.

This of course greatly reduced the work required to implement the 
Yodel, but will greatly limit the acceptability of the Yodel.

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Peter Fairbrother]

Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> What I'd like to know is does Godel's apply to all forms of
> para-consistent logic as well

And I replied:

No. There are consistent systems, and complete systems, that do not admit
Godel's theorem, but apparently not a system that is both (although even the
last is subject to dispute, and problems of definition).





Sorry, that was a little terse, and just a restatement of Godel. Slightly
drunk. 

One way of looking at it is that Godel's theorem only applies in systems
that allow counting according to Peano arithmetic*.

However you can have eg arithmetics without Peano counting, and so on, and
there are ("trivial" according to Godel, but even he acknowledged that they
exist) systems that are both complete (all problems have answers) and
consistent (no statement is both true and false).


Or, to put it in another and possibly simpler way, if you limit the axioms
in a system in such a way that statements about statements are impossible to
formulate, then Godel doesn't apply.

Can you do interesting things in such systems? Yes. But you tend to leave
intuition behind.

-- Peter Fairbrother

*{axioms: assume Natural numbers, no 0 [can be stated in other ways, that's
original Peano], an add-one function exists, such that if x-add-one =
y-add-one then x=y, and an induction axiom showing there are infinite
numbers: applying Dedekind logic gives ax + ay = a(x+y) and so on, known as
Peano Arithmetic, which is basically ordinary arithmetic in Natural numbers
only, ie no subtraction, division etc}

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Tyler Durden]

"All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
:-)"

I've wondered about that...I suspect that if God exists, then He is true but 
unprovable in any useful system!

-TD

PS: According to Godel's biographer, Godel at one point passed around a 
proof of the existence of God! (But towards the end of his life he also 
started wearing a surgical mask everywhere and became intensely 
germaphobic...)



From: Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Damn what a pack of geeks! (Looks like I might end up liking this list!)

It's full of nut cases too :-)

> I have not, however, heretofore considered that there could exist 
systems
> that had some form of completeness built in. My intuition (which is 
easily
> wrong) tells me that no such system could ever be useful in the real 
world,
> but who the heck knows?

All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
:-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike


_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: The End of the Golden Age of Crypto

[Mike Rosing]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Damn what a pack of geeks! (Looks like I might end up liking this list!)

It's full of nut cases too :-)

> I have not, however, heretofore considered that there could exist systems
> that had some form of completeness built in. My intuition (which is easily
> wrong) tells me that no such system could ever be useful in the real world,
> but who the heck knows?

All religions are complete systems.  Some people consider them useful,
but I'm not sure it classifies as "the real world".
:-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Yodels, new anonymous e-currency

[James A. Donald]

--
On 13 Nov 2002 at 2:26, Anonymous via the Cypherpunks wrote:
> It's not clear what value - if any - Yodel provides over and above the
> DMT Rand system.

The DMT Rand system knows if client X43967 transfers money to client 
X98987

It also know that client X43967 transferred money to or from a bank 
of America account, rendering client X43967 no longer pseudonymous.

Similarly for client X98987

Thus it can discover that Truename Bob transferred money to truename 
alice.

With Yodels, this cannot be discovered.

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 4dTv3KcoxE5viaZ34CP+Kgiv7xBHQnxAIgOf8q77
 4wRmxI7SHxYSApkRtBdKILKjZaXzp6Qu2F4jW9vcT

Re: Codetalking in the South Pacific?

[Tim May]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 12:46  PM, Tyler Durden wrote:


Oh yeah, another thing I wanted to ask about, before I forget.

It's somewhat well-known that throughout the South pacific, there are 
"radio stations" that do nothing but broadcast the real-time reading 
of number sequences, but no one seems to know just why. And these 
number sequences do not seem to be recordings...every station has a 
different voice, and the number sequences never repeat. So it would 
seem that they are being read in real time by natives employed at 
various islands.

Anyone know what the heck those things are? There's actually a 3-CD 
collection available of the number broadcasts.


"Numbers stations" are not of much interest for our concerns, for the 
same reason we are not a cryptanalysis/hobby cipher group. There are 
many Web resources on numbers stations, and probaby stuff in 
"Codebreakers." Also, Bamford.

And the South Pacific is not even where these numbers stations are 
usually associated with. There's a large transmitter near Warrenton, VA 
(coincidentally near the CIA's Farm, not too far from the Weather 
Mountain installation, and of course part of the original Army Security 
Agency).

(I'm not trying to discourage interest or discussion, just noting that 
"crypto" in general has a huge lore, many books...and most of them have 
nothing to do with the "postmodern" stuff of primary interest to us.)

--Tim May