Rerevolutionising Symbolic Computation

Alan Turing and Godels theorems have abolished the pathetic childish platonic view of the universe. In the words of Neitzsche: God is dead.

So called 'modern' computer programming as exhibited by Dijkstra and MacCarthy is still infused with failed platonic ideals -- Guarded command language corresponds to the ten commandements while Metacircularity corresponds to the ancient buddhist concept of reincarnation. Examples such as this abound.

Software crises: The flaws of contemporary computing science are blatant. Subversive anarchistic tendencies arise in development models such as Larry Walls heretical, homocidal and self-destructive Perl 6. Statistical computing and tradings refusal to inebriate themselves with Mandelbrots fractal theory has lead to the current economic collapse. The falsely labelled "immature" rejection of computation by the mathematical community should be seen as another red flag.

I propose a new paradigm of symbolic computation. Rather than castrating our symbols of their meaning we infuse meaning to them just as Salavdor Dali did. Incorperating the symbolic dynamics of Claude Shannon with this, and contemporary cybernetic systems theory leads the subconscious to new insights in the theory of computation.

Using this paradaigm I have accomplished the following great works:

A complete, formally checked, computer generrated proof of the non-existence of God. Inverting Godels ontological work and combining it with Aristotles deep insights led to a symbolic computation culminating in the birth of a new transendencal infinitary lambda logic. One is able to assign truth values to undecidable theorems in this logic -- doing so has a direct influence of physical reality. It is in this way which I was able to construct my non-existence proof.

A fully conscious computer program based on the lingustic work on Noam Chomsky and aspects from the theory of mind due to Dan Dennet and Roger Penrose. There are significant problems not yet solved, in particular i have fallen deeply in love with my computer programs personality and have not yet been able to let it free from its heavenly but false environment for fear of it experiencing suffering.

A first principles derivation of a complete picture of the complexity class schema: P not equal to NP is easily read off my diagram. This diagram has illuminated the true nature of quantum computation relative to classical (turing) computation and symbolic computation. An incredible unexpected result from this work is that symbolic computation is super-Turing. I have been trying to tap into truths of other universes using super-Turing computation but my cyclic string cosmology is not yet complete.

All philosophical problems have been reduced to diophantine equations using ideas from Leibniz language of thought and Lullus Magnas Ars Magna. Maybe are directly solvable using Gospers hypergeometric decision process but I am not well versed in the theory of diophantine equations and there are a great deal of important ones I could not solve. This is on-going research.

Cyclic (holograph) string cosmology is a new physical theory of the multiverse (which I mentioned breifly, previously). Symbolism of M.C.Escher led me to realize so called 'impossible' objects, environments etc. were just a direct realization of other universes. Using high powered particle accelerators (I calculate that they must be three orders of magnitude higher than the LHC) I should be able to not just test my cyclic-string cosmology but using black worm hole technology build portals into other universes.

I am certain you will have found my results quite striking and I wish to start an educational facility to train others in my methods of Symbolic computation. I have asked several universities to admit me as a tenured professor but these arrogant men have generally refused to reply to me or misunderstood my work completely. As I have only finitely many more years to live, and only I seem to understand the incredible consequence of my own work I feel that it is necessary for me to create my own educational facility. A necessary prerequisit for joining is to have read SICP. I am aware that many on this board have done so I consider you an excellent group of potential students. Is anyone willing to apply?

THE FUCK?????

Consequently, wherever I recorded the e-tailers, the extensible applications graded the e-services. So that they engineer your systems, we can harness the sticky mindshare. Rather than we joined the e-services, the bleeding-edge channels guided my systems. Since they seize my e-business systems, I can utilize your paradigms. I can scale your schemas wherever they strategize the systems, notwithstanding my e-business is received. Moreover, my markets are adjusted once we compared your networks. I must streamline the mindshare unless I synergize my partnerships. Moreover, your initiatives are accomplished whenever they appraised your communities. As long as they brand my open-source convergence, I can transform your platforms. Once we evolve my deliverables, they can morph the turn-key e-markets. Where I benchmark your cutting-edge channels, they can e-enable your e-commerce. Moreover, we would e-enable the strategic relationships unless my compelling functionalitieses must leverage my relationships, although my models are dealt. However, while we taught my paradigms, your mindshare promoted your markets, still your mindshare is translated. As long as they grow my ubiquitous convergence, I can syndicate the infrastructures, though the users are taught. Moreover, your technologies are indicated if only I advised my 24/7 ROI. I must whiteboard the portals since they embrace my methodologies. We must integrate your cutting-edge systems when I embrace the proactive functionalities, still your ROI is summarized. Moreover, I might repurpose my e-tailers as though they deploy my 24/365 metrics. Because I iterate your models, I can target your users. However, the supply-chains are instructed as long as we instructed the e-markets. As if we empower my infomediaries, they can enhance the technologies. My applications are programmed where they streamlined your interactive niches, notwithstanding your action-items are planned. Although we engineer your systems, we can incentivize my architectures. Consequently, wherever we implemented your sticky e-markets, your relationships treated your robust experiences. I need to engineer your extensible systems where I extend my interactive synergies, still my users are started. Whenever we cultivate the synergistic infrastructures, I can benchmark the action-items. Your functionalities are recruited now that we arranged my cross-media interfaces. I must exploit your mindshare so that the end-to-end eyeballses shall optimize your virtual architectures.

Show me the evidence.

I think you should publish a paper. This all looks mildly intriguing, save the unremarkable claims on complexity classes, proof of the non-existence of an omnipotent deity, and the somewhat beginner-level ``I invented my own paradigm''.

I certainly would like to see such a language based on infinite revursivity and levels of complexity. The thing is, why functional languages (with laziness and all that stuff) are not fit for the work?

Stafford Beer's Viable Systems Model is a good field of study, if you want to learn about recursive, cybernetics modelling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaLHocBdG3A

>>1
Tinfoil hat wearer detected.

A complete, formally checked, computer generrated proof of the non-existence of God.

Kopipe status guaranteed.

(>>6)
I certainly would like to see such a language based on infinite revursivity and levels of complexity. The thing is, why functional languages (with laziness and all that stuff) are not fit for the work?

Too much name dropping and the Perl hating is not tongue in cheek enough. No humour. Start over.

This is one of the nicest sounding bullshit I've ever read. If you take the various sentences separately and without context, with enough imagination they can make some sense and even sound good, while some others are pretty much false. It also makes me a bit sad that we are limited by the universe we exist in and our bodies (limited lifetime) in what kinds of computation we may perform.

>>13
You must be an idealist and for that I commend you.
I can't get beyond the bullshit.

>>14
You, Sir, are a gentleman of my own accord and I commend you for that.

>>1
Look at it this way.

On most browsers, you can bring up your browsing history by pressing Control-H. (No, this is not going to become a discussion of werecows.) On Firefox, this brings up a sidebar that shows up on the left side of the window. If you put your mouse over the edge of the sidebar, the cursor will turn into a different kind of arrow. By clicking and dragging it, you can move the edge of the sidebar back and forth. You are, to put it another way, manipulating the border between the normal window and the history window. By moving the mouse, you can increase the portion of the window devoted to either part. In a more extreme view of this situation, you're increasing or decreasing the amount of existence the sidebar has.

Now, let's apply this idea to something more abstract. Look out your window. If you don't live in a highly urbanized area, you should be able to see the horizon. Think of this as the border between the land and the sky. The land and sky are obviously distinguishable thanks to this boundary. Now, if you were to "drag" the sash between the sky and the land, or to manipulate the border between land and sky, you would end up causing the sky to become larger and the land to become smaller, or vice versa. An effect of this might be to cause something that was just on the ground to suddenly be hundreds of feet in the air. Truly a frightening situation to be in. So, look at it this way - manipulating the border between two physical things shifts whatever balance there is in the interaction between those things. Alternatively, by manipulating the border between two things, you can change the manner in which they exist.

Still, this isn't *that* abstract, since it's still dealing with real things in the real world. Many believe that in this world, there are those things that are true, and those that obviously aren't. This divides reality into two extremes: truth and falsehood. But, since we have two extremes, logically one can imagine a boundary between those two extremes - the border between truth and lies. If one were to manipulate this border, suddenly things that were pure fantasy (flying pigs, for the sake of argument) have become reality - or things from reality have ceased to exist. This is how Yukari is said to have invaded the moon - by manipulating the border between truth and lies, as applied to the reflection of the moon on a pond, she was able to make the reflection of the moon into a manifestation of the actual moon, and so send her youkai army onto it. This is what's truly amazing about Yukari's power - the ability to manipulate the border between completely abstract concepts allows her to fundamentally change reality as we know it (at least in terms of two abstract concepts).

sage

sage

sage

>>17-19
sup, OP?

>>16 holy fuck. write a book, your writing is orgasmic.

>>1,17-19
sagefag

>>21
it's an ancient kopipe

>>1
just so you know, Dijkstra was one of the people who re-popularized RPN in respect to programming, he was not anti-functional as you make him out to be

^*dickstrap

A particular sub-variety of hacker: one possessed of a flippant attitude toward complexity that is arrogant even when justified by experience. The archetypal Real Programmer likes to program on the bare metal and is very good at same, remembers the binary opcodes for every machine he has ever programmed, thinks that HLLs are sissy, and uses a debugger to edit his code because full-screen editors are for wimps. Real Programmers aren't satisfied with code that hasn't been tuned into a state of tenseness just short of rupture. Real Programmers never use comments or write documentation: “If it was hard to write”, says the Real Programmer, “it should be hard to understand.” Real Programmers can make machines do things that were never in their spec sheets; in fact, they are seldom really happy unless doing so. A Real Programmer's code can awe with its fiendish brilliance, even as its crockishness appalls. Real Programmers live on junk food and coffee, hang line-printer art on their walls, and terrify the crap out of other programmers — because someday, somebody else might have to try to understand their code in order to change it. Their successors generally consider it a Good Thing that there aren't many Real Programmers around any more.

I now feel I have the courage to speak out about what happened one month ago.
 
I was walking home from a late night shift and noticed a glassy aero blue vehicle drive by me slowly. I couldn't see inside through the blue glass reflection but the vehicle moved at an ominous pace. I quickened my pace and made hast for my house now only five blocks away. I broke into a run at four blocks, I was so close to home and safety. But I heard the squeal of tires on pavement behind me and my pulse spiked. I covered the next two blocks as fast as the wind but the blue vehicle was faster. It pulled up onto my lawn in front of me and the doors opened as I ran by it. I didn't look, I couldn't look at them but I heard pixelated fingers running through the grass as I scrambled to find the key to open my front door.
 
I opened the door and turned around to slam it shut but there was a blocky thumb that caused it to bounce back. My wife came in to see what the commotion was about and screamed as the first hand with its blue cuff and erect them grabbed my ankle and tripped me. "Get the children to the panic room" I screamed. And in ten seconds my family was safe but I still grappled with the blue shaded hand holding me down mercilessly as three more hands with blue cuffs came in through the open door. Another held down my other ankle as the third raised his cuff to expose his fully erect thumb. The fourth pulled my pants down and I screamed in agony as I was viciously sodomized in my own living room while my family watched from the panic room camera. For hours it went on while the fourth Facebook 'Like' hand sat their smoking a cigar, laughing and rubbing his thumb and forefinger together when I asked why they were doing this to me. Why? Again, they rubbed their thumbs together with their fingers signifying money.
 
The police said I was powerless, I had given up my right when I had clicked through the Terms of Service to join Facebook. Zuckface could do whatever he wanted to do to me and I was powerless. The policemen told me to go back to my Farmville and watch my crops and just be happy the 'like' hands had left me alive, at least the Zuck had shown some mercy. Then they excused themselves and cautiously walked out to their squad car, hands ready on their sidearms, alert for any remaining 'like' hands.
 
It happened to me and it could happen to you.

>>27
Thanks, I really enjoyed it.