- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: IMDMP: SOURCE CODE RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > AIDAS wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > > > > > Personally, I wish they'd hurry up. I'm getting rather annoyed with the > > > > > > spam, the "you're all homosexuals" postings, the posts by morons that > > > > > > can't figure out Majordomo or their mailers, and so on and so forth. > > > > > > Not sure about "all", but someone whose name sounds like AIDS, and who > > > > > advocates censorship, most likely is one.[snip] > > Ah, very strong response indeed. I feel as if shot down in flames, > > and my mind aches from the slice of your wit. Deliver us, oh Vulis, > > for we are in need! > > It still looks like Sandy to me. Writing style for one, unwillingness > to drop an argument for two, and the use of the name AIDAS is *very* > suspicious. But Sandy gave his word publicly that he was not AIDAS! - Igor.

1 0

Re: infinity & set membership
by Huge Cajones Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:36 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >"The least upper bound of a set of real numbers is often called the >supremum, the greatest lower bound its infimum. In general the supremum and >infimum of a set ARE MEMBERS OF THE SET or at least LIMITS OF SEQUENCES OF >MEMBERS OF THE SET." > >[capitalization is mine] > >In this case the suprenum is infinity. > >Introduction to Calculus and Analysis >Courant and John >Vol. 1, pp. 97, Section e. >1965 Edition >Library of Congress: 65-16403 I presume this is a reference to Jim's earlier post: At 1:19 PM 1/19/1997, Jim Choate wrote: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:20:45 -0600 >> From: Sir Robin of Locksley <tozser(a)stolaf.edu> > >> >Is it possible to prove that number 0.1234567891011121314151617181920... >> >iz irrational? >> >> Most definately. All you need to do is prove that the set of this number is >> uncountable, ergo is irrational. If you have friend who have done math in real >> analysis they can explain more. > >irrational means 'not expressible as the ratio of two integers', this does >not imply uncountable. > >Whether 0.12345678910111213... is irrational or not depends on how we choose >to define a rational number where the denominator and numerator are both >approaching infinity and how quickly those approaches occur. > >[ What is your definition of infinity/infinity ?] > >As alluded to before, > > 0.12345678910111213 = 12345678910111213.... / n > > (where n = infinity) > >0.123456789101112... is certainly countable because by the definition of >countable it must be 1-to-1 with the counting numbers (ie non-negative >integers), which this one clearly is since it contains each positive >non-zero integer (ie the set of numbers required to produce the number are >clearly less, 1 less to be exact, than the counting numbers). Of course this same argument could be used to claim that pi is also rational. pi = 314159.... / n (where n=infinity). What could be the problem here? One problem might be that an integer (not including infinity) divided by "infinity" should be 0. The p/q definition of rational numbers does not rely on "infinity" being a member of the set of integers. Also, we rarely hear this dialogue: "Give me an integer." "Okay - infinity!" Still, let's define a set which contains the integers as well as positive and negative "infinity". I will call this set the "Choate-integers." Let's add some reasonable rules for working with +inf and -inf. n is a non-zero positive traditional integer. a. -inf = +inf * -1 b. +inf * n = +inf c. +inf + n = +inf d. +inf / +inf = 1 Operations involving multiplication or division of +inf and zero are undefined. Using these definitions, you will find that the p/q definition of rational numbers operates as expected on the set of Choate-integers. The argument I supplied earlier for the rational nature of 0.1234... still holds. Math Man

1 0

Debt (calling) Cards Re: Newt's phone calls
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:58 PM 1/17/97 -0800, Rich Graves wrote: >What does concern me is personal privacy. I don't want people tracking >my movements or purchasing patterns, so I prefer to use cash or >pseudonymous debit cards. This reminds me, I got a sprint 5 minute sample calling card when I got my college texts. I suspect that other people on this list got one as well. Mine is completely unused and although transferring the actual cards would cost, (the stamp and envelope), would anyone be interested in trading the numbers? This one is registered as being handed out in Weatherford Okla. Five minutes of long distance is trivial, so I would be willing to trade in regular e-mail, as opposed to through a middleman.

1 0

Take it to sci.math
by winsock＠rigel.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Will all those people who are talking about set theory and the countability of various number systems take their discussion to sci.math, please? 'Cuz 1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. 2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those threads is even remotely correct. 3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math and 4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. Hey Sandy, you gonna censor these creeps once you start censoring?

2 1

Re: Take it to sci.math
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: > > Will all those people who are talking about set theory and > the countability of various number systems take their discussion > to sci.math, please? 'Cuz > ... > Hey Sandy, you gonna censor these creeps once you start censoring? I won't be censoring anyone. I will, however, be sorting posts into the three lists. As I work my way into moderation mode, I don't expect to sort math or other off-topic posts into the flam (flames & spam) list. In retrospect, the previous "creeps" comment should probably have gotten the post sorted to the flam list. Oh well, I'll get up to speed pretty soon, I hope. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Airport security [no such thing]
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:04 PM 1/17/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis wrote: >snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> writes: > >> > I say we make people fly naked and ship their stuff via UPS ;). >> >> >>shudder<< >> >> No!. A clear case of the cure being worse than the disease... > >Why. it might be fun - those long flight can be so boring with clothes on... > Wouldn't work. A sworn member of the holy order of the restitution for the crimes of my enemies, has an explosive device buried within h[is/er] bowels. When (s)he goes up, alone, (s)he will take 100+ enemies with h[im/er]. Of course (s)he has to be willing to die, or be duped into thinking that (s)he really has appendicitis. So a courier would still be easy to find. Or, a cancer infected member of said religious cult, knowing that (s)he will soon die anyway, and probably atone for h[is/er] many sins, ((s)he hasn't really done anything rightous, like kill one of the enemy), chooses to have h[is/er] cancerous bowels, up to the stomache, removed, and replaced with a bomb. (s)he then heals up a little while, being fed intraveinously, until the time of h[is/er] atonement. A makeup artist erases the signs of disease that (s)he carries and a large dose of pain killer is given to h[im/er] to take right before entering the airport. (s)he dies knowing that (s)he is going straight past heaven to an even higher level.

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[reep] May likes to lick the semen-shit mixture that accumulates in the crack of his mother's ass. ,_ o / //\, Tim C[reep] May \>> | \\,

1 0

Re: Take it to sci.math
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:01 AM 1/20/1997, WinSock Remailer wrote: >Will all those people who are talking about set theory and >the countability of various number systems take their discussion >to sci.math, please? 'Cuz What a joke! Of all the messages to whine about this guy picks the math thread. Somehow that wouldn't have been my first choice. >1) All that stuff is irrelevant to crypto, its science or politics. No, but it's interesting to many readers of this list and it builds community. >2) Not a single math comment made by anybody on any of those > threads is even remotely correct. >3) You will recieve your proper chewing out on sci.math > >and > >4) This bullshit is extremely annoying to those of us who has some real > training in math, even more so than the regular bullshit on this list. I don't get this at all. You have particular knowledge in the field, but instead of sharing the information with the rest of us, you find our (apparently) pathetic attempts to gain understanding to be "extremely annoying" and imply we need to be chewed out. Commander Zero

1 0

RE: THIS IS THE FIRST MESSAGE TO THE MODERATED CYPHERPUNKS LIST
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore wrote: > >>Welcome to (what I hope is) a more useful and less confrontative >>cypherpunks list. Now, can we get back to talking about cryptography? > > "can we get 'BACK' to talking about cryptography?" You seem to have misspelled START. >Scott

1 0

FW: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE.
by Butler, Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have set up an autoresponder to bounce back all of this jerks responses. Like a game of e-mail tennis ! I'm sure that he will get sick before I do ! Scott >---------- >From: Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com[SMTP:Gerardo_NUNO@bourns.com] >Sent: 17 January 1997 18:38 >To: Butler, Scott >Subject: AUTO ANSWER MESSAGE. > > > > From : "Gerardo NUNO"@[PRCL/01] Please check the name and e-mail address of the person that you're looking. Since gerardo_nuno is out of the system temporary. attn. System Administration.

1 0