tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post9014519051223209068..comments2024-03-25T16:03:36.810-07:00Comments on The Existentialist Cowboy: The Four Horsemen of Digital ApocalypseAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-78796552866435805532008-09-07T03:16:00.000-07:002008-09-07T03:16:00.000-07:00Thanks, damien. Great resource. I am browsing it n...Thanks, damien. Great resource. I am browsing it now. <BR/><BR/>For the record: I was attacked by minions of Satan calling themselve (or their 'product') <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/anatomy_of_a_hack/" REL="nofollow">XP Antivirus 2008</A><BR/><BR/>The good news is: I may have --at last --removed the last vestiges of this plague and, in the meantime, have erected some pretty formidable obstacles. This is a good time to browse your list.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-32155682834935042872008-09-07T02:40:00.000-07:002008-09-07T02:40:00.000-07:00Len, there are several reasons why SpywareWarrior ...Len, there are several reasons why SpywareWarrior can be trusted. They have a long-standing reputation for being resolutely spyware free. Along with CastleCops they are seen as the go to guys for ridding computers of infections. They list over 200 <A HREF="http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm" REL="nofollow">rogue spyware products</A> that should be avoided and why. And they provide a list of <A HREF="http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-features.htm" REL="nofollow">trusted, high quality anti-spyware programs</A>, many of them free. They really are a great resource and their discussion forums are excellent. With the number of high quality anti-virus programs out there people have no reason to download second rate stuff. Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-23489761042752280942008-09-06T06:21:00.000-07:002008-09-06T06:21:00.000-07:00damien said... Sorry to hear about the attacks, Le...damien said... <BR/><BR/><EM>Sorry to hear about the attacks, Len. You can run HijackThis and SpywareWarrior (also here) can analyze the results for you and help clean up your system.</EM><BR/><BR/>Thanks Damien. I am willing to try them all and trust YOUR suggestions. A caveat may be in order. Not all 'anti-spyware' is created equally; therefore, other 'victims' can benefit from your experience. That is preferable to just downloading the first so-called 'anti-spyware' scam that pops up on a search. It must be kept in mind that the offender (in my case) has pretended to be 'anti-spyware', a seemingly perfect cover. <BR/><BR/><EM>The Japanese went crazy for a while over fuzzy (probabilistic) logic even building robots and washing machines that used such systems. The latest computer developments use quantum logic in which Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy is used to define a computer chip with 64 truth value states rather than the traditional binary true/false.</EM><BR/><BR/>I recall the 'fuzzy logic' craze. One of its first applications, as I recall, were Nikon, Canon, et al still cameras, video et al. 'Fuzzy logic' was said to have been especially useful in program or semi program exposure modes. <BR/><BR/><EM>It appears to me that you raise the fair question not of provability but of limits to knowingness, of what we can know. I think that's a fair point but it in no way diminishes the certainty of traditional logic systems and the conclusions they reach.</EM><BR/><BR/>I think that's a fair assessment. While a high school freshman, one of teachers lent me a collection of 'papers' by Russell, Ayer, Wittgenstin et al in a book called "<A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Philosophical-Analysis-Herbert-Feigl/dp/0917930290" REL="nofollow">Readings in Philosophical Analysis"</A>. It was at this time that I acquired a copy of Ayer's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Language-Truth-Logic-Alfred-Ayer/dp/0486200108" REL="nofollow"><EM>Language, Truth and Logic</EM></A>. <BR/><BR/>It would seem that at about 1900 or so, the very limits of knowledge began to be pressed in two directions --logicism (the reduction of pure math to pure logic) on the one hand, and another branch (best exemplified by A.J.Ayer) seeking a 'logicial' foundation for empiricism. The problems were presaged when Russell, in his attempts to found mathmatics upon logic, derived propositions that were false only when they were true and true only when they were false, a situation not unlike that facing my computer while under attack, a situation not unlke that the 'self-referential' statement that can never be uttered by UTM lest its utterance may it make it 'false' and thus 'true', therefore 'false'. At first blush, Godel seems to have discovered the absolute limit of 'logicism', while Ayer put some brakes on empiricism by questioning the meaning of meaning. His 'verifibility criterion of meaning' is unassailable. <BR/><BR/>Wittgenstein's analogy of the map is as good as Godels' proof in that both find limits to 'knowledge' in 'self-referential' statements, however logical. Indeed, 'consciousness' itself is an infinite regress like standing between two facing mirrors. The hypothetical UTM, for exmaple, breaks down only when it is challenged to make a 'self-referential' statement. Likewise, Wittgenstein's 'map' may not --in a finite 'legend' --contain valid instructions upon its own use. Wittgenstin's statement: "A logical picture of facts is a thought" is very close to summing up my own 'philosophy', and, is, in fact, a corollary in one of my own under-graduate papers. At the risk of over-simplification, it seems to be that the history of 20th Century philosophy is the story of the pursuit of both empirical knowledge (science?) and pure logic/mathmatics. <BR/><BR/>Wittgenstein believed that logic was based upon the idea that every proposition is either true or false but, like Godel, found limits to the ability of formal systems to derive every true or provable statement. Ayer categorized 'propositions' as either 'synthetic', capable of empirical verification, or 'analytic', capable of being proven either true or false by logic alone. <BR/><BR/>Science, at first blush, has nothing meaningful to say about 'ethics', systems of value judgements often having nothing to do with hard facts. Bronowski's critique of Ayer redeems Ayer. There is in "'Language, Truth and LOgic', says Bronouski, an implied 'social injunction' that one ought to behave in such a way that what is true may be proven to be so." <BR/><BR/><EM>The religious nuts especially would love to misread Godel's theorem and throw logic to the wind and rely on superstition. Yes, there are limits on what we can prove, but Evolution is still true and 2+2 still equals 4. Under Godel some true statements may be unprovable. For example, the Goldbach conjecture claims that every even number is the sum of two primes. Thus 10 = 7+3 and 106 = 101 +5. It's long been believed that this is true but now, following Godel, we must entertain the idea that no proof of this may be available unless we add more assumptions to our mathematics system.</EM><BR/><BR/>Indeed! A 'fact' that Russell had encountered. Godel is no excuse to 'throw logic to the wind' but religious fanatics can always be depended upon to draw the wrong conclusions about anything. I suspect, however, that anyone attracted to 'religion' are looking for 'completeness" and find it in religion. These people need a 'system' that gives them all the answers. Only religions of one sort or another can do this. I also doubt that any one professing to be a 'fundamentalist Christian' has read Godel. In America, the radio and, later, the tele-evangelists who made a living denouncing 'Godless Communism' had ever bothered to read either Marx or Engels. I am not terribly worried about the semi-literate suddenly findingredemption in an obscure corollary to the 'incompleteness theorem'. <BR/><BR/><EM>So Russel's hope was in vain. But I think he suspected that anyway. So you're right, Len, to note that "basing math entirely upon [a consistent and complete] logic must be considered impossible." Godel showed that new mathematical assumptions will always be needed to handle the underlying mathematical phenomena. It's all good fun!</EM><BR/><BR/>I think you're right! Russell was one of my early heroes and still is. He spoke his conscience and often paid the price for having done so. He lead a long and productive life and I hope that he understood how influential he would remain long after his death --not just for his work in logic and philosophy but his tireless efforts on behalf of nuclear disarmanment and peace.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-9511257300441049322008-09-06T02:26:00.000-07:002008-09-06T02:26:00.000-07:00I've always been baffled by the idea of kasparov/d...I've always been baffled by the idea of kasparov/deep blue 'meaning' anything much apart from a useful bit of PR for technocratic dreamers.<BR/>The defeat of kasparov was the work of many men, several of them grand masters, using deep blue as a brute force prosthetic, nothing more.<BR/>The idea that the machine 'triumphed' (sneaky anthropomorphism) is a little like claiming your president is a self made man.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608591025225519578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-72348873891054365462008-09-05T14:40:00.000-07:002008-09-05T14:40:00.000-07:00MarkH said...The article is good if you don't delv...MarkH said...<BR/><BR/><EM>The article is good if you don't delve too far into the Kasparov part. </EM><BR/><BR/>Don't worry! I have no plans to write bios of either Kasparov or Fisher. Besides --it doesn't matter than Deep Blue won. I once beat a grand master whose name I can't even remember. [BTW --it was one on one, not a 'demonstration' in which he played many folk at once] As far as I'm concerned, it was a fluke. And, as shocked as he may have been at the time, he was still a grand master and I was not even ranked and never would be. <BR/><BR/>And I have played very little chess since because 1) I am not willing to devote my life to it as Fisher had done; and 2) what a way stop playing!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-5701693910970347392008-09-05T12:13:00.000-07:002008-09-05T12:13:00.000-07:00The article is good if you don't delve too far int...The article is good if you don't delve too far into the Kasparov part. The contract he played under actually did allow some human interference!<BR/><BR/>Also, don't put it past Kasparov to throw one match in hopes of getting another and winning the bigger goal of making more money. Of course, that hope was smashed when IBM decided they'd had enough and the sore winners took their computer and went home -- leaving Kasparov miffed, but not poor.<BR/><BR/>Kasparov is perhaps the best chess player to have ever lived, so it's hard to say what his strategy was and whether he succeeded or failed. He's still an intelligent interesting fellow.<BR/><BR/>Oddly, 13 is his lucky number!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-15577400778097549612008-09-05T09:25:00.000-07:002008-09-05T09:25:00.000-07:00I had this same virus. It was so annoying and my N...I had this same virus. It was so annoying and my Norton didn't detect it at all. I had to call Friendly Computers and pay someone to fix it. I do online banking and don't want some stranger going through my accounts. The "tech guy" was really nice and it only took him an hour to remove it. Their site is http://www.friendlycomputers.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-77180753315397130092008-09-05T04:56:00.000-07:002008-09-05T04:56:00.000-07:00tiago said... You know some one has taken over you...tiago said...<BR/><BR/><EM> You know some one has taken over your computer when your wife calls you at work and tells you that your Pakistani mail order bride has arrived. </EM><BR/><BR/>Good one, tiago : )<BR/><BR/><EM>when I find myself locked into a site with no options, I have one. It is called the power button. </EM><BR/><BR/>I use it often. In this case, however, Satan had already taken his dump among the many files that make up the system.<BR/><BR/>Paul's link at <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/anatomy_of_a_hack/" REL="nofollow">anatomy of a malware scam</A> is the very culprit that attacked me but with some updates. Whoever is doing this keeps revising it. Some of the offending files did not show up among 'cookies' at all.<BR/><BR/>Basically, these 'folk' have written a crappy anti-virus program and are blackmailing folk into buying their junky crap by CREATING a need to get 'spyware protection'. This is very much like a mob 'protection racket' except that the mob could probably be depended upon to defend you against the competition. These people will blackmail you, dump junk on your computer and leave you even more exposed than before. But in the meantime, they will have gotten your CC numbers and cleaned out your account. Needless to say, they got shit from me! <BR/><BR/>They should be castrated.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-11723404818735645632008-09-05T03:16:00.000-07:002008-09-05T03:16:00.000-07:00Len; You know some one has taken over your compute...Len; <BR/>You know some one has taken over your computer when your wife calls you at work and tells you that your Pakistani mail order bride has arrived. <BR/>Seriously, when I find myself locked into a site with no options, I have one. It is called the power button. When the computer powers back up, you are free of that site. Then, check your cookies and delete the cookie from that site. <BR/>A computer’s gates are designed to know two states, high, any thing above 4.1 volts, and low, anything below .7 volts. Any thing in between is limbo. Another way of saying it is the gates are either on or off, hence binary, (or hexadecimal as I was taught and that is ancient history).<BR/>The logic is then; true or false. There is no in between, buts or maybes. <BR/>This is the very reason I refuse to participate in surveys. The results are predicated/slanted in the logic of whoever writes the survey, (or computer program).tiagohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00354310296446288223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-52154065463580166592008-09-05T00:43:00.000-07:002008-09-05T00:43:00.000-07:00damien said...It's not immediately obvious from th...damien said...<BR/><BR/><EM>It's not immediately obvious from the example but the number of the continuum is massively greater than that of denumerable numbers.</EM><BR/><BR/>Great post, damien! And timely! Just recently, I have been reading some old stuff by Isaac Asimov as it relates to 'numbers' et al. I also dragged out and dusted off some Russell that I had not read since high school. <BR/><BR/>The mind boggles. <BR/><BR/>Your analogy to "a clear sky ablaze with billions of stars" would do Carl Sagan [R.I.P.] proud. <BR/><BR/><EM>And if we have to be humble about mathematical truth, how much more hesitant should we be about the more complex truths of life, society and people. The only proper human disposition should be wonder, innocence and humility. Thanks Godel!</EM><BR/><BR/>I would like to add my thanks, as well. 'Certainty' has become a political issue, unfortunately. The GOP shares many defining characteristics with the Nazi party --equally certain, equally sure of all things ideological. I may have referred to Jacob Bronouski's last episode of "The Ascent of Man", in which he urged us to resist the need to be certain.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-58391516847235757612008-09-05T00:12:00.000-07:002008-09-05T00:12:00.000-07:00SBT, you may be misreading Godel's theorem when yo...SBT, you may be misreading Godel's theorem when you say <EM>As far as philosophy and logic are concerned I think that Godel's incompleteness theorem infers, even demands the trinary system with the demonstration that there will always be some proposition that cannot be assigned a simple value of true or false.</EM><BR/><BR/>Godel's theorem is concerned with <EM>provability</EM> of mathematical statements that are known to be true but which cannot be proved within the framework of the axioms of arithmetic. Godel does not say they can never be proved-- they often can be by the addition of further axioms. His theorem is concerned with the limitations on provability for any given fixed set of assumptions.<BR/><BR/>Multi-valued logic system have been studied for years. The Japanese went crazy for a while over <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic" REL="nofollow">fuzzy (probabilistic) logic</A> even building robots and washing machines that used such systems. The latest computer developments use <A HREF="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=%22quantum+logic%22&btnG=Search&meta=" REL="nofollow">quantum logic</A> in which Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy is used to define a computer chip with 64 truth value states rather than the traditional binary true/false.<BR/><BR/>It appears to me that you raise the fair question not of provability but of limits to knowingness, of what we can know. I think that's a fair point but it in no way diminishes the certainty of traditional logic systems and the conclusions they reach. The religious nuts especially would love to misread Godel's theorem and throw logic to the wind and rely on superstition. Yes, there are limits on what we can prove, but Evolution is still true and 2+2 still equals 4. Under Godel some true statements may be unprovable. For example, the Goldbach conjecture claims that every even number is the sum of two primes. Thus 10 = 7+3 and 106 = 101 +5. It's long been believed that this is true but now, following Godel, we must entertain the idea that no proof of this may be available unless we add more assumptions to our mathematics system.<BR/><BR/>And, Len, your claim needs some minor adjustments -- <EM>Prior to Godel, Bertrand Russell had hoped to base all of mathematics upon pure logic. Until Godel is utterly disproved, basing math entirely upon logic must be considered impossible.</EM><BR/><BR/>Godel cannot be disproved. In various forms the proof has been confirmed. It's true. But I know where you are going here. Russell hoped to show that mathematics was both complete and consistent. "Complete" means that any true statement derived from the system can be proved <EM>within</EM> the system. "Consistent" means that the assumptions that form the system never give rise to contradictory statements. Godel showed that for any fixed number of mathematical assumptions that define a system that system can either be complete or consistent -- but not both. So Russel's hope was in vain. But I think he suspected that anyway. So you're right, Len, to note that "basing math entirely upon [a consistent and complete] logic must be considered impossible." Godel showed that new mathematical assumptions will always be needed to handle the underlying mathematical phenomena. It's all good fun!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-31950652504339120082008-09-04T17:00:00.000-07:002008-09-04T17:00:00.000-07:00Sorry to hear about the attacks, Len. You can run ...Sorry to hear about the attacks, Len. You can run <A HREF="http://downloads.malwareremoval.com/HJTsetup.exe" REL="nofollow">HijackThis</A> and <A HREF="http://www.spywarewarrior.com/index.php" REL="nofollow">SpywareWarrior</A> (also <A HREF="http://www.spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=25477" REL="nofollow">here</A>) can analyze the results for you and help clean up your system. There are other expert groups out there who do a similar good job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-20550055997749816032008-09-04T16:51:00.000-07:002008-09-04T16:51:00.000-07:00Since you're indulging Godel, Len, perhaps I can t...Since you're indulging Godel, Len, perhaps I can throw in two cents worth. The mathematical contradiction is worse than it first appears, even more devastating for those who would like to believe that <EM>most</EM> if not all mathematical truths are provably true or false. An explanation may help. We can put the counting numbers in a list: 1,2,3,4,5 .... Can we list fractions in the same way? Yes we can. Here are the fractions in a table:<BR/><BR/>1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1...<BR/>1/2 2/2 3/2 4/2 5/2...<BR/>1/3 2/3 3/3 4/3 5/3...<BR/>1/4 2/4 3/4 4/4 5/4 ...<BR/>1/5 2/5 3/5 4/5 5/5 ...<BR/>... etc<BR/><BR/>Now, we can put these in a list by itemizing the diagonals:<BR/><BR/>1/1, 2/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/2, 3/1, 4/1, 3/2, 2/3, 1/4, 1/5, 2/4, 3/3, 4/2, 5/1, 6/1...<BR/><BR/>So there are as many fractions as there are whole numbers! It is a somewhat bizarre result suggestive of a cheap trick, but it's not, as we shall see. We call such an infinite list <EM>denumerable</EM>. It's a particular type of infinity. Now let's ask the question: "Can we put all decimal numbers in such a list?"..."Are the decimal numbers denumerable?" The answer is no! There are massively more decimals than fractions or whole numbers. For our purposes we can consider decimals between 0 and 1. Let's imagine we can write a <EM>denumerable</EM> list of those all the decimals. It might look like this:<BR/><BR/>0.<STRONG>0</STRONG>00000.... (=0)<BR/>0.5<STRONG>5</STRONG>5555.... (= fraction 5/9)<BR/>0.14<STRONG>1</STRONG>59265358979323846… (= pi minus 3)<BR/>0.712<STRONG>8</STRONG>8888....<BR/>0.4444<STRONG>4</STRONG>44....<BR/>0.81326<STRONG>0</STRONG>0042115....<BR/>...<BR/>etc<BR/><BR/>Now consider the special decimal <BR/><BR/>special = 0.130957...<BR/><BR/>I have chosen this decimal specifically because it differs from every one of the decimals in the above list in at least one decimal place (check the highlighted decimals in the list). So now we know that the number 0.130957... <EM>does not lie on the list of decimals and can never do so</EM>. <BR/><BR/>The conclusion is inescapable: the decimal numbers can <EM>never</EM> be put into a list like the fractions or the decimals. We call this new infinite amount of numbers the power of the <EM>continuum</EM>. It's not immediately obvious from the example but the number of the continuum is <EM>massively</EM> greater than that of denumerable numbers. Try thinking of a handful of sand and compare it to all the sand on all the beaches of the world and you will have some idea of the comparison of <EM>denumerable</EM> to the <EM>continuum</EM>.<BR/><BR/>Here's where we get back to Godel. Mathematicians had held out the hope that all mathematics could be proved either true or false. Godel came along and showed that "No! There are some statements that may be true that we can <EM>never prove</EM> within our system of mathematics no matter how hard we try."<BR/><BR/>And here's the stunner: <EM>In comparing the true yet unprovable mathematical statements uncovered by Godel with true statements that we can actually prove it turns out that we are comparing denumerable infinity with the power of the continuum!</EM> In looking at the mathematically truthful statements that we cannot prove we are looking at a clear sky ablaze with billions of stars! There is far more that we can never prove than what we can prove.<BR/><BR/>And if we have to be humble about mathematical truth, how much more hesitant should we be about the more complex truths of life, society and people. The only proper human disposition should be wonder, innocence and humility. Thanks Godel!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-55820111131041432462008-09-04T14:18:00.000-07:002008-09-04T14:18:00.000-07:00paul said...Your experience sounds a little like t...paul said...<BR/><BR/><EM>Your experience sounds a little like this anatomy of a malware scam</EM><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link. Am scanning it now. This must SURELY be the one. I hope to track these bastards down. They might yet regret their bullshit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-7767944474981837012008-09-04T11:23:00.000-07:002008-09-04T11:23:00.000-07:00Your experience sounds a little like this anatomy ...Your experience sounds a little like this <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/anatomy_of_a_hack/" REL="nofollow">anatomy of a malware scam</A>paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608591025225519578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-44421445973106526262008-09-04T10:10:00.000-07:002008-09-04T10:10:00.000-07:00I think trinary logic may be quite useful. In this...I think trinary logic may be quite useful. In this case, however, the conundrum is premised either/or. UTM can either utter G or not. <BR/><BR/>At the heart of the problem is the fact that "UTM will never say G is true" is 'self-referential'. The example demonstrates that there is at least one 'true' theorem that UTM cannot state (without violating its 'prime directive)' Simply, if UTM says 'G' is true, then, by saying it, UTM proves it false! Thus --the theorem is proven; 'G' becomes the 'one' true theorem that cannot be uttered by UTM because to utter it is to make it false. <BR/><BR/>Thanks also for the links to ST 'Nomad' episode, which, at the time, was among my favorite episodes. Star Trek was ahead of its time. From the same era was 'Mission Impossible', like Star Trek' fodder for movie spanning generations. <BR/><BR/>Godel's Incompleteness theorem has enormous implications. Prior to Godel, Bertrand Russell had hoped to base all of mathematics upon pure logic. Until Godel is utterly disproved, basing math entirely upon logic must be considered impossible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04598093941551759917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19580203.post-26867249424357022832008-09-04T08:15:00.000-07:002008-09-04T08:15:00.000-07:00The Rucker paradox is easily assailed by thinking ...The Rucker paradox is easily assailed by thinking outside the artificial box in which Rucker poses the question - that box being the proposition that logic fits into a binary solution set.<BR/><BR/>Sure the idea that 1= 'true' and 0= 'false' provides scriptwriters with <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Changeling_(Star_Trek)" REL="nofollow">a handy way for Spock to defeat Nomad</A> but I don't think the number system used by today's computers is a good fit with either the real world or any theoretical philosophical construct.<BR/><BR/>Truth values are better assigned using the trinary number system, where the digits have values equal to 1= 'true', -1= 'false' and 0= 'undetermined.' (this system is called <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinary_logic" REL="nofollow">balanced ternary</A>) But as I inferred above, we might want to stick with the binary system for electronic devices if only to provide a fail-safe. After all, it would have turned out poorly for Spock had Nomad been based on a trinary logic system.<BR/><BR/>As far as philosophy and logic are concerned I think that Godel's incompleteness theorem infers, even demands the trinary system with the demonstration that there will always be some proposition that cannot be assigned a simple value of true or false.SadButTruehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09977090207448656065noreply@blogger.com