Re: $US 2 million math puzzle challenge
On Aug 9, 11:47 pm, Scipione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc, I knew this puzzle quite well; i tried to order it but i have some trouble obtaining it (i'm italian and as you can readhttp://uk.eternityii.com/ Italy isn't included in the country where such puzzle is sold and where the solution can come from (!) ). So...meanwhile i tried to obatin my own copy, i would like to see how is the real puzzle...hence...i would ask you if you could be so kind to take and send me a picture of the gameboard filled with all the pieces (but please dont' put them in the winning order: i want to solve it by my self ;) ) Raffaele.. Sorry I can't publically share information about the puzzle pieces. This message comes with the game: Christopher Monckton holds the copyright in all the ETERNITY and ETERNITY II puzzles. The details of the pieces of the clue puzzles as well as of the prize puzzle are protected by copyright, and any circulation of them, in any form or medium, will result in action for breach of copyright. To protect other solvers, the judges will disqualify any entry whose existence becomes publicly known before the date of the annual scrutiny following its submission, and any entrant who has publicly disclosed any details of any of the Eternity II pieces in any form or medium. But there seem to be many places where it's available. Hope you find a copy from somewhere. Anyway i started to work on it: i'm studing the problem creating my own software working on some possible puzzle; however as you can understand, the right approach depends on the particular distribution of symbols (the number of different triangles used in the pieces and their combinations) chosen by the author of the real game. I too am creating software to try to solve the puzzle. I have a class diagram - software enginnered using my MCRT ontology of course ;) and am now implementing the design. There is a group on Yahoo you may be interested in where many people are talking about using AI / Genetic Algorithms etc to try to crack the puzzle. Link to the group below. Good luck: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/eternity_two/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
On 09/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you will not mind if I ask you stupid question, like Do you know what mathematicians mean by function?. Sometimes I realize that some people does not grasp what I say because they just miss some elementary vocabulary, or they have a problem with the notation. Of course anyone can ask any questions. Math is something easy (the easiest of all sciences) but if you miss a definition then it *looks* difficult. Thank you for asking, it's very important to ensure full understanding at all points. My maths are indeed a bit rusty, but fortunately resources are easily available as needed to refresh the memory. Would you be happy with the wikipedia treatment of 'function'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_function OK. But for this I need to be sure you grasp well the UD argument, at least the seven first step. The steps will always refer to the 8-steps presentation of the summary PDF Slides available here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html How can I best demonstrate this to your satisfaction? I accept the validity of the demonstration in the UDA (which I believe that I'd already intuited as a consequence of the 'solipsism of the One') that the first person or reflexive OM must be indeterminate with respect to its third person manifestations. However, I also wanted to ask whether it was important in this context to define in detail the content and informational limits of a given OM (e.g. its temporal scope or 'duration')? Well, the UDA can already be seen as a 'grandmother' way of making this intuitive. What you have to understand is the turing-universality of addition and multiplication, in the first order logic framework. I will explain this in all detail, but I have to begin with Church thesis. I propose we try to organize ourself through a well defined sequence of posts, which we can from time to time transform into a pdf, so that we can refer to the pages of that pdf, instead of post messages with fragile addresses. OK? OK indeed. Peter was putting too much philosophical weight to the notion of existence. Recall that the ontic base of reality will just be te numbers, and that when I say a number exist, I mean it in the usual sense of elementary high school arithmetic. The key point is that a machine which can prove all the true sigma1-sentence is turing universal. this is already well explained in Torkel Franzen's book (in his first appendix). Again, don't worry I will explain. Do I need Franzen's book too? Now, to eliminate redundancy in the explanations, I insist we organize ourself. I have already explain many of those things, but never in a way so that I can easily refer to the (too many) posts. All right? Alright! The idea is really this: if you are in front of a running (and thus never stopping UD), the seven steps shows that, taking comp seriously, to make any 100% prediction, you have to take into account all the reconstitutions of yourself (which exist by the comp hyp) and their continuations. OK, again in terms of 'the One', since all the 'reconstitutions' exist, they must all indeed play a role in the 'account' (which can be synonymous with narrative or story). By the first person indeterminacy, your future will be determined by the most probable comp histories going through your actual state. By 'probable' you refer to the elusive measure? The problem then will consist in defining what is a probable comp history. This is a very difficult problem: for example, when can we say that two computations are equivalent, etc. i.e. from the third person pov? The trick I have done is to abandon the idea of searching directly a measure on the computations, and, instead, to isolate the mathematical structure for the certain-propositions by using the self-referential logics. IOW you adopt the view from the inside out? I would like to understand this securely. It seems to me that you're saying that focusing on self-reference relies on the intrinsic self-location of first person 'pages' within the 'Library of Babel' of the UD's output. Given this, how do such pages then 'cohere' into 'narratives through time'? The first person will feel herself restricted 'in time' indeed. Somehow, she creates subjective time/consciousness. But from the ontic view, with the block-all-computations (alias UD*) there is no time. From the material (first person plural view) pov, it is an open problem if there is an objective time. I think we may have to come back later to this question of subjective time. But for now I rely on you to set the agenda of our more structured modus operandi. David Le 08-août-07, à 15:26, David Nyman a écrit : On 30/07/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile I would suggest you read the book by David Albert: Quantum Mechanics and Experience OK, I've ordered it. Good. I can
Re: Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
On 10/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of intensional number theory, by which I mean number theory from the points of view of number ... ? Insofar as we accept that the foundation of 'comp reality' is the number realm, comp physics must indeed be a branch of this (e.g. as per my previous example of 'digital digestion'). OK. Don't buy it if you decide to buy only one book on Godel, and let me think which is the best one. But if you are willing to buy/read two books, then get it asap. 'In for a penny, in for a pound' (old English saying) - I've ordered a cheap(ish) copy of Franzen on Godel. But let me know which you think is the best one. I think we may have to come back later to this question of subjective time. But for now I rely on you to set the agenda of our more structured modus operandi. Ok thanks. Then for the rest, I'll wait for your next post. David Le 10-août-07, à 14:26, David Nyman a écrit : On 09/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you will not mind if I ask you stupid question, like Do you know what mathematicians mean by function?. Sometimes I realize that some people does not grasp what I say because they just miss some elementary vocabulary, or they have a problem with the notation. Of course anyone can ask any questions. Math is something easy (the easiest of all sciences) but if you miss a definition then it *looks* difficult. Thank you for asking, it's very important to ensure full understanding at all points. My maths are indeed a bit rusty, but fortunately resources are easily available as needed to refresh the memory. Would you be happy with the wikipedia treatment of 'function'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_function It is ok. I will say more in a post on the difference between the layman and the logician. OK. But for this I need to be sure you grasp well the UD argument, at least the seven first step. The steps will always refer to the 8-steps presentation of the summary PDF Slides available here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html How can I best demonstrate this to your satisfaction? I accept the validity of the demonstration in the UDA (which I believe that I'd already intuited as a consequence of the 'solipsism of the One') that the first person or reflexive OM must be indeterminate with respect to its third person manifestations. OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of intensional number theory, by which I mean number theory from the points of view of number ... ? However, I also wanted to ask whether it was important in this context to define in detail the content and informational limits of a given OM (e.g. its temporal scope or 'duration')? ? The third person OM are outside time and space. time and space will emerge from the way OMs combine each other. They do combine through their intrinsic relative content eventually. But here we are anticipating. Well, the UDA can already be seen as a 'grandmother' way of making this intuitive. What you have to understand is the turing-universality of addition and multiplication, in the first order logic framework. I will explain this in all detail, but I have to begin with Church thesis. I propose we try to organize ourself through a well defined sequence of posts, which we can from time to time transform into a pdf, so that we can refer to the pages of that pdf, instead of post messages with fragile addresses. OK? OK indeed. Peter was putting too much philosophical weight to the notion of existence. Recall that the ontic base of reality will just be te numbers, and that when I say a number exist, I mean it in the usual sense of elementary high school arithmetic. The key point is that a machine which can prove all the true sigma1-sentence is turing universal. this is already well explained in Torkel Franzen's book (in his first appendix). Again, don't worry I will explain. Do I need Franzen's book too? Hmmm The problem with the logicians is that they have a tendency to write beautiful books (and often quite expensive). So yes, buy or find an exemplar of Franzen's book, but honestly I could mention some other good book. But in our context Franzen's book could be a good if not the best beginning. His other book on inexhaustibility is quite interesting too, even as an introduction to PA (the Escherichia Coli of the lobian machine). OK. Don't buy it if you decide to buy only one book on Godel, and let me think which is the best one. But if you are willing to buy/read two books, then get it asap. Now, to eliminate redundancy in the explanations, I insist we organize ourself. I have already explain many of those things, but never in a way so that I can easily refer to the (too
Re: [Fwd: Apparently not a spoof...]
On 8/9/07, On 09/08/2007, at 5:06 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: Here's a school that's ahead of Bruno in taking consistency to be part of theology. :-) http://chfbs.org/high_school/high_sch_math.htm Brent Meeker I clicked up the URL: it does not seem to include anyrhing like Bruno's god concept, rather invokes the 'assumption' that screwed up human thinking for several millennia - in the past, rather than ahead of Bruno. God created without any basis, is an empty phrase. To plant this into the minds of young students is the age-old stupefying criminal misconception that lead to so many wars and misery. (OK, to art as well). John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Observer Moment = Sigma1-Sentences
Le 10-août-07, à 14:26, David Nyman a écrit : On 09/08/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope you will not mind if I ask you stupid question, like Do you know what mathematicians mean by function?. Sometimes I realize that some people does not grasp what I say because they just miss some elementary vocabulary, or they have a problem with the notation. Of course anyone can ask any questions. Math is something easy (the easiest of all sciences) but if you miss a definition then it *looks* difficult. Thank you for asking, it's very important to ensure full understanding at all points. My maths are indeed a bit rusty, but fortunately resources are easily available as needed to refresh the memory. Would you be happy with the wikipedia treatment of 'function'? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_function It is ok. I will say more in a post on the difference between the layman and the logician. OK. But for this I need to be sure you grasp well the UD argument, at least the seven first step. The steps will always refer to the 8-steps presentation of the summary PDF Slides available here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html How can I best demonstrate this to your satisfaction? I accept the validity of the demonstration in the UDA (which I believe that I'd already intuited as a consequence of the 'solipsism of the One') that the first person or reflexive OM must be indeterminate with respect to its third person manifestations. OK. Have you seen that this is going to made physics a branch of intensional number theory, by which I mean number theory from the points of view of number ... ? However, I also wanted to ask whether it was important in this context to define in detail the content and informational limits of a given OM (e.g. its temporal scope or 'duration')? ? The third person OM are outside time and space. time and space will emerge from the way OMs combine each other. They do combine through their intrinsic relative content eventually. But here we are anticipating. Well, the UDA can already be seen as a 'grandmother' way of making this intuitive. What you have to understand is the turing-universality of addition and multiplication, in the first order logic framework. I will explain this in all detail, but I have to begin with Church thesis. I propose we try to organize ourself through a well defined sequence of posts, which we can from time to time transform into a pdf, so that we can refer to the pages of that pdf, instead of post messages with fragile addresses. OK? OK indeed. Peter was putting too much philosophical weight to the notion of existence. Recall that the ontic base of reality will just be te numbers, and that when I say a number exist, I mean it in the usual sense of elementary high school arithmetic. The key point is that a machine which can prove all the true sigma1-sentence is turing universal. this is already well explained in Torkel Franzen's book (in his first appendix). Again, don't worry I will explain. Do I need Franzen's book too? Hmmm The problem with the logicians is that they have a tendency to write beautiful books (and often quite expensive). So yes, buy or find an exemplar of Franzen's book, but honestly I could mention some other good book. But in our context Franzen's book could be a good if not the best beginning. His other book on inexhaustibility is quite interesting too, even as an introduction to PA (the Escherichia Coli of the lobian machine). OK. Don't buy it if you decide to buy only one book on Godel, and let me think which is the best one. But if you are willing to buy/read two books, then get it asap. Now, to eliminate redundancy in the explanations, I insist we organize ourself. I have already explain many of those things, but never in a way so that I can easily refer to the (too many) posts. All right? Alright! The idea is really this: if you are in front of a running (and thus never stopping UD), the seven steps shows that, taking comp seriously, to make any 100% prediction, you have to take into account all the reconstitutions of yourself (which exist by the comp hyp) and their continuations. OK, again in terms of 'the One', since all the 'reconstitutions' exist, they must all indeed play a role in the 'account' (which can be synonymous with narrative or story). Here there is something not quite correct I think. But I must go. The idea is that all the reconsititution exist in many histories will have just a statitistical effect of the first person view of the way the OM (re)combine. Again this is a (grandmother) anticipation. By the first person indeterminacy, your future will be determined by the most probable comp histories going through your actual state. By 'probable' you refer to the elusive measure? The not so much elusive measure :)Yes. The problem
