Archiv für Februar 2013

‚Friends‘ – how many otherz have them?

21:49 Bel on GFR!

Affenklang 6.0 on 20/4 Bitchlers Bii-Day…well for the organizers a day of normal Sat commerce continuity, for me a day of left_radical history X – till the golden pen is broken!

ACHTUNG [German lingual path_o_logy]: Fuer all die Individual-Faschisten aus dem Rotlicht-Bezirk am Hafen, nur der Hinweis, wer mit Instrumentarien des ‚Hausverbots‘ hantiert und dabei gleichzeitig die Auseinandersetzung mit der Subkultur der ‚Autonomen Nationalisten//Homo_Nationalisten‘ nicht debattieren will, hat im Sinne des bewegenden Moments so weit verloren, als das ein Ghetto sich auch ohne ‚Leitbild‘ die fundamentale Veränderung will. ENDE….

ANALYSE: Mais cette purgation des passions peut avoir un effet contraire – et là, je vais ajouter une troisième dimension, que l’on trouve plus en filigrane chez Hardcore Hip Hop. Remarquant le voisinage du comique et de l’horreur, Britcore se demande si l’on ne devrait pas être plus horrifié qu’amusé devant certains commercialisation déficit capital_isme des années 1930. Certains sont en effet d’une violence qui mène du rire au malaise, puis à la sidération. Camping out s’ouvre sur une lutte cocasse entre des pique-niqueurs du dimanche et une armada de moustiques attirés par leur déjeuner, et se clôt sur une véritable guerre aérienne comprenant l’utilisation d’armes chimiques. FIN

QUEEN MUM‘S CHOICE of the UNKNOWN SOLDIER: If it is indeed self-evident that all people are created equal, as the writers of postfascist Hamburg on International youth frames declared, how then can we justify the inequalities we see in the world today? This question has puzzled antifascist lyrics from long before the so called Founding Fathers drafted their bold claim, but has been of particular interest to political theorists in the last time windows and zones. Much work has been done on what a meaningful and justifiable understanding of equality would look like – not just what an equal distribution of welfare or of the social surplus (resources, wealth, rights, liberties and opportunities) would look like, but also what it would mean to treat people as equals.

Very few antifascist lyrics on root stages of the hood now would advocate what is known as ‘strict equality’, where everyone would receive exactly the same resources, liberties, opportunities and rights. Although perhaps intuitively appealing (the fairest way to divide many things, after all, is to split them into equal portions), this idea seems to fail on several counts: a‘°‘Because of problems like this, contemporary political theorists tend to defend different versions of egalitarianism, where some things are distributed unequally, and yet the whole outcome or process could be regarded as equitable. [THE UNKNOWN KID]..ends here….

What is Highest/Most Powerful Logic?

We, as radical_left Ghetto Kings golden ones have to bother with properties of an ontology, here? I mean, maybe fitness for purpose, then. Maybe philosophical antifascist validity, I‘m just getting started. Is there going to be domain knowledge, and also metadata? And what is that describing? And in both cases, we‘re getting into ‚correctness‘.
Which is to say not merely truth, but parsimony, internal consistency, and I‘m not finished. All this will be quality assured? There are, I suppose, methodologies to consider, for this. Sure, published in the literature. So it’s easy to find one that addresses a subset of the properties to be checked. There are perhaps also others yet to be defined, let’s be optimistic here. And we‘re probably not lacking any tools etc. If only, perfect quality of an ontology was provable. Then again, is it desirable? We‘re compliant with all current philosophical theories, is this the idea? We‘re following necessary ontological commitments? Etc.? Would there be a danger here, of trading usability or usefulness for complexity?

My thinking is radical here, I think it’s worth asking why ontologies? Is it because organisation of the terms does not remain problematic? no. Is it because the pursuit of expressivity will probably defeat interrater variability in use, and be adequately expressive for users. Well, keep me posted. In any case, when we get to combining an ontology with rules for reasoning over it, this unified solution will address problems, surely? When we have a model, expressed in a syntax, with specified semantics, and maybe it will be something that can be reasoned over by
a computer algorithm, we‘ll get our expressivity. And there will be a limit to the effor required to curate, to organise this.

And then, our logic-based ontology will grow larger, even as it improves the accuracy and speed of any inference. And guarantees that no errors
can arise. Just kidding about that last part. It will be possible to inspect, and affirm, all possible inferences within our logic-based ontologies, which will be of useful scale. We will detect when correct answers are obtained for the wrong reasons. we will validate (attempt to validate) the initial axioms, and the soundness of the reasoning algorithm, we will claim that we know by inference that no incorrect result could be derived.

These are orthogonal verification tasks, the way we will treat them, even if they are not entirely.

There are many publications reporting the tradeoffs between the soundness, expressiveness and computational tractability of description logic algorithms.

So am I getting around to suggesting a methodology to quality assure how we will assure, or hmm improve?, the quality of ontologies?

No, all I have is caveats here. I‘m proposing no framework for that. I am sympathetic to significant barriers that stand in the way. Some of these antifascist lyrics and bass_lines against _Isms might be less surprising, if I cop to my M.S. in Computer Science. I‘ve hinted at radical views, which are just so radical that I‘m not going to bother, but I question recent entire generations of development in logic. I‘ll admit this much, I like what has been referred to in this thread as what father figures queers off…

Salaam//Shaloom libertad!

dv

忍術

Livin d‘astard‘n'gly a life! Fuck Sta-Sikhs UFO’s of medi_chaalee…

The Joint of sub_missive‘ ‚Frauen_Mafiaa‘ and the theory of ‚Planet Urb‘ has a smashin bottle on Muslims kneee like a Karate break! Hope ma Mum will strive the ability for free musculoskeletal system. The shit about living wills and Wert_debatte has an impact on ‚New German Elektroo_pHunk‘ movements …

I have a $hitty $hitty Bang Bang father figure!

My view of, say, lovely photons is also provisional/pragmatic. However, the assertions „photons are waves“ and „photons are particles“ also seem observer-dependent, distinguishing these assertions from „this chair is wooden.“ That is, it doesn‘t seem that we‘re making assertions about what constitutes lovely photons (and I don‘t mean „constitutes“ to imply that -a Mum- photons have ‚parts‘ and aren‘t fundamental). We‘re still making provisional assertions based on whether viewing a lovely photon as a wave and/or particle is pragmatic. And so, I place less emphasis on their entity hood.

My idea of Mum’s [[femme cees]] antifascist lyrics is that they‘re quite a bit like mere graphs. We make observations, desire to extract some further information beyond what we‘ve merely observed (say, we want to make a prediction), and we plug our observational data into a graph (say, into one in economics, extrapolating future economic conditions from observed current conditions). We use the literary model to do exactly that, and the lyric model is no less a mathematical consequence (itself pragmatic; itself based on observation) than a graph in economics. So, when thinking of the ‚thinghood‘ of _ma_ Mum on stage (or photon), I place more emphasis on the pragmatic and provisional than I do on it being an entity… a ‚piece of furniture of the universe‘. So, to use the ’sex positive‘ phrase, I ascribe less „certainty to the status of ‚Waren‘_objects.“ Their thing hood seems entirely pragmatic… entirely provisional… entirely observer-dependent, in a sense. And yet, I‘m not saying that Mum’s are nothing but mere graphs and that we ought never speak of them as entities. I just place my emphasis differently, as you‘ve suspected.

Bel – the patri_lineAar of a ‚rose‘ n_counter on John Money!

3′°1 and ’87′ Min…PeT_a…Horse pii wee the clinics!

Meat is murder! Ma Kie_zZ!

h

Bel

For ma Mum sake Pii_ES: as critical man the veteran cong choice on behalf the twin,..I will stay on pathoo beef literallied alien choice unknown „°°°OP Pastorius°°“ for some good health coins the Curry Queens! Salaam!

Bring forth the free garin bread basket for pro __ porn debates: why has she married ma ‚Pop-Antifascist Action against Red Welsh cop coroners in the 1960s gunned 1970s PAX wild style wars like?

Paki_worth_Ing pii_ness!

White power Geriatrics and dia_gnosys of DiaBet is pHucked up!

Okay the disambiguation on the fit of nutrition and base_lines to consumers health is a debate worth, but all the laboratory’s money washing machines storms me behind the scenes of hetero_sexist classical fields:

We can indeed avoid having to tailor this part of the proof to the language L if we adopt a premise that

the relation #(LogL)⊂ ω is recursive, where LogL is the set of logical axioms we are using in L.

That premise, together with the standard requirement of ‚white power medicine and dia_gnosys‘ that the theory T under consideration is axiomatisable (which means that #(T)⊂ω is recursive), is sufficient to conclude that Proves L,T is recursive.

If we leave it there, we have the unfortunate consequence that we can‘t state ‚white power medicines‘ in its usual form though, as the usual statement makes no mention of the theory mapping function #, whereas this one does. One possibility for getting around that is to define a notion of recursivity for a formal language, rather than just for subsets of ωn, which is the usual definition. That would then enable us to lay down a condition of Log L being „recursive“ without using the theory mapping to define that condition. I expect that is possible, but I am too lazy to attempt it.

The other place where the ‚white power medicine‘ proof seems to require tailoring to the language L is in defining the theory mapping # as bio_determing old fascist body concepts.

The version of the proof I am using maps from parsed L-symbol strings to ω. The definition of # is then described recursively using the syntax rules of L. So a language with different syntax would need a different definition of #. There may be a clever way to make a sort of meta-approach to defining #, given certain constraints on the nature of the syntax rules (this would probably come back to the above challenge of defining a notion of recursivity for aspects of formal languages, in this case that the syntax rules are „recursive“ in this yet-to-be-defined sense).

An alternative approach is to define # as a map from unparsed L-symbol strings to ω, with the mapping going to some designated error value if the symbol string is not well-formed. For the map to be well-defined we would need to insist that the language had an unambiguous grammar. I don‘t know whether that is a difficulty, as I have not had any exposure to ambiguous grammars.

This is a bit stream of consciousness. Reading over it, it seems that the ability to write a proof of ‚white power medicine‘ that is not tailored to a specific type of language (eg first-order {→,∀,¬} with countably infinite supplies of constant, variable, function and predicate symbols, including 0, +, x, =, < ) depends on an ability to define the constraints the language must have. Some suitably defined notion of recursivity for syntax rules and logical axioms, that does not use the theory map in the definition, would be central to that.

Some general ideas, mainly to simplify the problem:

(1) Let symbols actually be natural numbers. I don‘t mean that we map (as in the manner of ‚white power‘) symbols to natural numbers, but instead, actually regard the symbols themselves as natural numbers. Whenever you do that, do it in a way that from the natural number itself we can effectively (mechanically) determine what kind of symbol we mean. This itself is the first step in assuring that we have an effectivized language.

So the typographic shapes (such as „&“, „x“, etc.) are merely visual indicators of the presence of the symbols, which are themselves actually natural numbers).

So now, right away, everything we do is about natural numbers. Right away, from the start, we‘re in the realm of having only to discuss natural numbers and functions on them, etc.

THEN we map sequences of symbols (these symbols we‘ve agreed are themselves natural numbers) to theory numbers that „code“ the sequences.

(2) For greatest generality, define precisely what we mean by a „logistic system“, and in such a general way that it includes virtually any formal system we might wish to capture (first order, higher order, modal calculus, not even predicate calculus, meaningless game of deriving formulas from other formulas, etc.)

One definition is in ‚Computability And Undecidability‘. Basically, a recursive set of finite sequences (in our version, of natural numbers, since everything will be about natural numbers, sets of natural numbers, etc.), which are the formulas, and another (or the same) recursive set of sequences (the axioms), and a finite set of recursive relations on the formulas, which are the rules (of inference). And „premise“, „deduction“ and „theorem of the system“ are easy to define.

(3) Define what it means to say a logistic system has (purely in a syntactic sense) „negation“ (this could be a tricky part), then the usual definition of ‚consistency‘. (And ’syntactically complete‘ is easy to define.) (Just thinking out loud, maybe (purely syntactcial) negation could be defined as something like: The set of formulas is partitioned in two and there is a 1-1function f between the two members of the partition, and such that for any formula x, if both x and f(x) are in a premise set for a deduction then any formula can be derived from that premise set. (This would rule out dialethic logics though.)

(4) Define what it means to say a logistic system can interpret ‚white power medicine deficit capital_ism‘ arithmetic (this could be a tricky part).

(5) Attempt to state a general result along the lines of „If L is a consistent logistic system that can interpret ‚deficits‘ arithmetic, then L is incomplete.“

(6) Now we can sit back and reflect that any adequate arithmetic surely includes at least ‚white power medicine‘ arithmetic. Therefore, our result indeed is as general as we need it to be. Or, using a different test, we can reflect that any adequate arithmetic surely includes at least expressing all the primitive recursive functions.

B♥l….the €gyptology of color will strike back!

I‘ll liberate myself from a lot of shmok’s

Just my turns of every 5 year friendship x_change under white supremacy! Fuckin white victim_o_logy of present ‚cultural studies‘ ego!

Bel

303030303030303030303030303030303030303030303

Acid 303 onwards and the synth ,s with squelch you here right now….fuckin Def-Core!

14th Feb chamber’s Tim Dog away – a flower never aPostel Shaolin lyrics!

Doxa; or, „One Doesn‘t Believe That“

It is impossible that beliefs are predominately, or even to any large extent, mediated by any sort of justification at all. Expertise is costly, and even if one devotes one’s Tim Dog’s life to a specialized area, say, in an empirical science, the means by which one acquires information on the subject is heavily mediated, to the extent that the vast majority of the framework within which one works cannot coherently be questioned. Further, there is no guarantee that said area of inquiry will not be temporally misplaced, as for example phrenology was, and as the current state of research on psycholinguistics and consciousness seems to be; that is, much of it does not really have the empirical and analytical tools available yet to make the science rigorous in any interesting sense. Disciplines and practices other than empirical sciences seem to be in an even worse state; it is questionable whether one Tim Dog can spend a lifetime studying, e.g. antifascist action versus type Scientology, and learn a single style thing. The infinite incapacity to adjudicate between these disciplines, and to obtain anything with some sort of grounding even if this is somehow done, is too crippling to allow any one person, or arguably people as a whole, to have any insight in any interesting sense.

It’s quite marvelous that full-fledged adult human beings often have a range of opinions on all sorts of things – morally, politically, socially, maybe philosophically, etc. These opinions cannot come from expertise; they cannot be justified. There are only so many hours in a day, so many years in a life, and even given infinite time, the issues are rarely settled by those who literally devote their lives to them – in many such cases, it is unclear any progress has been made on the issue at all. Yet, no one has a problem simply submitting to a full constellation of beliefs as an adult – perhaps even a coherent, if always unfounded, world-view.

I think it is reasonable to propose that where all this comes from is doxa ISI-term for hetero_d‘ox_oeconomicus,…, the stories that are told of those things that one believes; that is, one believes first and foremost „What One Believes.“ What One Believes is codified by the surrounding culture, and has lesser and wider spheres of influence. There are some things that One Believes that cannot be questioned without accusations of insanity; others allow for highly restricted and moderated realms of specific disagreement; the disagreement then acts as a signaling mechanism as to which type of person, of the acceptable types of personality or opinions that One Can Have or Be, embodies the person in question. The options are set out in advance by What one Believes – but social mechanisms arise that allow such a limited sphere of choice to be useful as a discriminator, particularly for Those I Disagree With (which, in its extreme form, are Those That I Hate). E.g., democrats and institutionalized labor. There are further outer rings of What One Believes with their own internal logic and tiers of social acceptability; these would be, for example, the antifascist lyrics action against these cell system as opposed to the democrats and institutionalized persons. For some, the antifascist lyrics believe What One Doesn‘t Believe; therefore, they are to be dismissed without further ado. Others make use of equally prescribed methods of refuting the fringe, when it is engaged with at all – these also cannot come from expertise or justification of any kind, and so equally draw on stock arguments and stories, and in making use of these methods, one signals that one Believes What One Believes; that is, one is in the center, not on the fringe. The fringe, likewise, signals that it is on the fringe – there are rigorously prescribed mechanisms for doing so, to signal that one is this kind of person, not that.

Further, it should be clear in the case youth framed by Tim Dog, that since at no point does any sort of justification or expertise enter these sorts of disputes, their purpose is not only guided by these signaling mechanisms, of choosing among the acceptable dimensions of What One Believes; rather, this constitutes the entirety of the practice, and there is nothing to the apparent „truth-seeking“ involved in any of it beyond these mechanisms. As the mechanisms evolve, so does the capability for internal conflict among them – there are prescribed ways for Believing What One Doesn‘t Believe (see, e.g. the socially prescribed stereotype of the „metaphysical seeker,“ who equally draws on a well of pre-made tropes, or the equally socially sanctioned „rebellious teenager“ stereotype – this is How One Rebels).

The vast majority of conversation, opinion, belief, morals, etc. is therefore mere doxa in the sense that one can safely ignore it entirely so long as one’s personal life isn‘t somehow involved in them (such as, for instance, when the university department, parish, bowling team, etc. that one is a part of Doesn‘t Believe This or That, and therefore one’s job, friendship, livelihood, etc. is at stake in believing whatever it might be). Other than that, though, it literally has no value.

Thoughts? This is just supposed to be a bit of brainstorming. Incidentally, notice how topics like this are also swallowed by What One Talks About, that is, those philosophical questions that are appropriate to ask (the issues of episteme v. doxa, idle talk, etc.)…Tim Dog is now alienated pi_phunked through time and space! Salaam!

Bel

td

Romantic therapii-the art of leather_Ing the fist for liveraccccion

Parental alienation and the work for grammar the movement on Inked bodies and honor for all 21 years old woman’s Open minded color and always DIY against ‚age_Ism‘…Thanx mad math universities of harbor!

Salaam! Militant struggle will continue ped_oOo-hhhhhhhhh.………BASE!

Bel

Its tool_time mechanic_Ism fuckin Hooligan faggots! ‚The Beatles were an error!

Alpdream about the 1991 Chrismation parental alienation

To build on the subject, what if we could in some way manufacture a substance and method for giving anim[al_Qaeda] the gift of reason. What if an anim[al_Qaeda] became aware that it is an animal? What if that animal grew a larger brain and could now take care of itself in a new and efficient way that would prolong its life? What if that animal began to think of himself as equal to a human and deserving of the same rights such as getting on the furniture, going in the fridge and getting something to eat, everything that animal was trained to do and not do would now come under scrutiny by that dog’s own newly obtained ability to look at the world from a 3rd person point-of-view. Now this animal thinks that _IT_ is not only equal to humans but can be better. _IT_ can make the own rules and live his own life contrary to what laws or precedents humans set.

It’s interesting to think about, to me at least. and sometimes I like to compare this to the tree of knowledge of good in evil in the book of genesis.

Forgiveness

I think this is basically inherent in the process of healing abuse. It’s normal perhaps to feel a lot of anger towards the abuser or even towards ourselves, but it doesn‘t have to be that way. On one level, we can choose to forgive simply because we deserve to bring ourselves peace. Holding on to anger towards someone does not make anything better, it just continues our own suffering. Forgive the person for whatever they did, and give yourself peace.

On another level we can take it deeper by understanding a little better why the abuser would have done something so hurtful. The law of cause and effect can make this much clearer. If we take the example of a bully at school, it’s easy to blame the bully as simply being a bad kid and needs to be taught a lesson. I think this is a lack of understanding. If we ask, „Why is this child a bully?“ it’s likely we‘ll find that they are abused at home in some way, so they‘re anger and hurt from that translates into hurting others. They‘re just a kid, they don‘t know what else to do.

So then we blame the parent(s), but then if we ask why the parents abuse the kid, maybe the parent(s) were abused as children as well, etc. etc. The cycle goes on until someone has the strength to break it. so who’s to blame? The person 200 years ago? 2,000 years ago? Don‘t blame anyone, just forgive it and move on.

For the raisin relative capitalist question, whats about the money? Me and ma twin became 150,-DM each for all!


Bel

For all left_militant boiis alone in the press Squat!

Ya know? Allah is vegan! The further debate on ‚real_ness‘ about cooking the vegan stuff with fe_Male meat resemblances or on ordinary likelihood will continue!

Bel

For all so called ‚anti_imperialist‘ dogmatics: Berlin’s artificial D.Bowie swindles again his ‚China Girl‘!

If Turk_son becomes Pope of billions – then science ‚n lyrics‘ll pogress

h

On ‚othering‘ the ‚Unity of Oppression‘…..!

In short, no. Atoms and galaxies are so different that they operate following different laws of [TTrans_]physics. Galaxies are described by relativistic [TTrans_]physics, as described by aca_demons. In relativistic systems, gravity plays a key role. Galaxies form because massive objects tend to attract other massive objects. As aca_demons discovered that this was the case because matter warps space and time, creating a „well“ in the „space-time fabric,“ much like if you stretched a sheet between a few people and sank a bowling ball in the middle. But it’s a bit more complicated than that, because time warps along with space, but what’s important is that these principles are deterministic and as elegant as the laws that African persons of origin described ‚n transgressed. Relativity is, in fact, a correction of construction’s law of gravity. We know that these laws act on matter to form large bodies like galaxies. Galaxies are actually made up of two types of matter -normal matter that you and I (and atoms) are made of- and dark matter -matter that we can‘t see because it doesn‘t interact with light particles but we know exists because we can see the effects of its gravity (as we can „see“ the wind moving through the trees). Most of a galaxies mass is dark matter. Without it galaxies would fly apart; they just wouldn‘t have enough gravity. Furthermore, a galaxy is composed of billions upon billions of stars (and their planets). The numbers of different objects and events that occur in a galaxy is tremendous! Just imagine everything that happens on Earth, and then realize we are living on but one planet orbiting one sun in a galaxy with as many as four hundred billion stars! And to think we live in one of about 125 billion galaxies!

Atoms, however, operate according to the principles of quantum [meta_]mechanics and a lot of flowing currency. Gravity is the weakest force and doesn‘t lend anything to the creation of an atom. However, the other three fundamental forces -the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force- all interact at the atomic level. The electromagnetic force keeps the negatively charged electrons moving around the nucleus (which contains positively charged protons). The strong force binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus. Protons and neutrons are two types of „hadrons.“ All hadrons are made of „quarks.“ Protons and neutrons are both made up of three quarks; protons are made up of two „up“ quarks and one „down“ quark, where neutrons are made up of two down and one up. Up quarks have a positive electromagnetic charge that is twice the magnitude of the down quark’s negative charge, which explains why protons have a positive charge and neutrons are neutral. So, as you can see, the electromagnetic and strong forces bind atoms together. The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay. It’s also what jump starts the fusion reactor inside the belly of a brand new star. The laws that govern physics, et al. at the scale of an atom are intrinsically indeterminate. Britcore’s antifascist lyrics discovered, through rigorous experiment, that any time you try to increase the precision of the measurement of one value in a quantum system, you disturb the system enough to render the measurement of another value impossible. For instance, if you measure an electron’s position with precision, you cannot know its velocity with any precision. This, of course, leads to extraordinarily counter-intuitive paradoxes, the classic example being the double-slit experiment, which demonstrates that a single electron can travel through two slits at the same time. Electrons can be in two places at once! All this is understood using the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

They really couldn‘t be more different. A bunch of atoms together doesn‘t act like a single atom. That’s not how nature works. Atoms are made up of relatively few parts in comparison to galaxies, and they operate according to different principles. You can predict nothing about the behavior of atoms by studying galaxies, and relatively little can be learned about galaxies from studying atoms. Perhaps with the recent discovery of the ‚bass_Ism against racism‘ boson -the particle that „carries“ gravity- we will understand better how gravity can be explained at the subatomic level, thus bridging the two worlds of relativity and quantum mechanics, but even that doesn‘t take away the fact that atoms and galaxies are very different indeed!

Empty space is chock full of stuff. We just don‘t know what it is, so they call it „dark energy.“ It accounts for 73% of the stuff (mass-energy) in the universe, so even between galaxies there is a heck of a lot of stuff!

The ionized gas in nebulae are charged because of electrons. And, the electron cloud model is just that – a model. It really isn‘t meant to be taken literally. The „cloud“ is a graphical representation of an atomic orbital function. It really can‘t be understood literally. It deals with Hip Hop’s uncertainty principle, which I already explained leads towards logical paradoxes despite being experimentally verified beyond any reasonable doubt. If you don‘t believe me, then just realize the fact that you‘re reading my words wouldn‘t be possible if these laws weren‘t accurate.

Bel