Subject: One and Zero

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:27:32 +0300

Hi people,

A friend of mine, Omer Zak, recommended me this list.  I hope it's OK
I'm posting to it.

A few days ago I wrote a very emotional article about numbers.  I
called it "One and zero".  If you read it, let me know what you think.

http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=23

Uri.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 03:46:33 -0500

Hello Uri,

I'm afraid I need more clarification.

Although you use mathematical language, you are describing abstract
concepts. You're anthropomorphizing the numbers one and zero,
assigning them moral values and behaviors.

Then you use statements like:

"One always remains one, zero always remains zero. They are completely
separate. Two parallel lines who never meet"

Which confuse me - are you at any point in this article actually
referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?

And the same goes for logic. You are making extremely subjective,
stereotypical claims about the numbers one and zero, and then you
attempt to apply logic to your statements. Is it really logic? You
write words in a language of logic but I have a feeling you're not
really following logical rules in your deductions.

The way that makes most sense to me when I read this article is as a
"stream of consciousness" free associations following one another.
This form does not have to adhere to any sort of logic and you can use
symbols from any language. It also explains the rapid and disconnected
changes in the subject. If you tell me that neurotoxins were involved
in the creation of this piece, I will not be surprised. Otherwise it
is pretty difficult (albeit possible, with some training) to capture
such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

And a slight correction: "Google" is a name of a popular search
engine. "Googol" is the name of the number one followed by a hundred
zeroes.

Take care,

-- Arik

On 4/27/07, Uri Even-Chen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Yahoo! Groups Links

---

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:38:42 +0300

Hi Arik,

Thanks for your feedback.  I really appreciate it.  I will answer your
questions below.

> assigning them moral values and behaviors.

Yes, I know.

> referring to the actual numbers, the real numbers 1 and 0?

Yes, the whole article is about the numbers one and zero.  For
example, "One always remains one, zero always remains zero" refers to
what happens to them when they are multiplied by themselves (or more
generally speaking, powered by any positive number).

By the way, one and zero are the only numbers (integer, real or
complex) who remain the same when multiplied by themselves (or powered
by a positive number except one):

x^2 = x    <=>
x^2 - x = 0    <=>
x * (x-1) = 0

> really following logical rules in your deductions.

The whole idea of articles such as this one is that I'm challenging
deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.

But although this article is about numbers, it's not a professional
mathematical article.  It's literature.

> such an experience long enough to put it into writing.

I didn't write it on drugs, if that's what you mean.  I don't take
drugs.  But in the past, there were times I took psychiatric drugs,
which are neurotoxins.  I object to taking neurotoxins, and why I took
them is a long story.  Sometimes they were forced upon me.  But at
least two months before writing this article, I didn't take any.  (a
few months ago I was put in a mental hospital against my will, and
psychiatric drugs were forced upon me).

> engine. "Googol" is the name of the number one followed by a hundred

It's not a mistake.  I decided to spell both of them "google".  I
don't make any difference between "google" and "googol".  But usually,
when I refer to the number I spell google, and when I refer to the
company I spell Google (with a capital G).

Sometimes people decide to change spellings of words.  For example,
some words in english are spelled in american english differently than
what they are spelled in the traditional, british english.  And since
I don't like the spelling "googol", I decided to spell it "google"
instead.

Actually, Google itself is a "play on the word googol", as they phrase it:
http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

If you want to see another article on a similar subject, read my
article "The limits of knowledge":
http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=14

Uri.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:31:03 -0500

> generally speaking, powered by any positive number).

I think I would have got it on the first go were it explained like you
did now. Also you did not cover the part about them being like
parallel lines - did you mean the two lines f(x)=0 and f(x)=1?

> by a positive number except one):

Well, you can design a 2nd order polynomial for every two numbers,
like for 2 and 3:

x^2-5x+6=0

> deterministic logic, claiming that it is inconsistent.

I'm sorry but I didn't understand how you prove your claim.

> mathematical article.  It's literature.

This makes things much clearer; although as someone educated in math
it confuses me when I see an article using mathematical *language*
without the math.

> psychiatric drugs were forced upon me).

Yes, I meant drugs, but drugs are not the only way to achieve these
states. You didn't answer my question about the article having the
stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?

What were you in for? Schizophrenia?

> I don't like the spelling "googol", I decided to spell it "google"

Again the language issue - if you use your own personal language to
describe the world, expect people to misunderstand you. To interact
with people you have to share some of their reality, and language
plays an important role here (I'm an Israeli living in the US, so I'm
painfully aware of that). If you don't share enough of other people's
reality, you will be misunderstood. If you don't have enough control
over yourself to share in enough of other people's reality, you might
find that people will tend to push you away from society.

> http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=14

Ah! That's much more like it. An article about a single subject
following up on the subject from start to end. I liked that one more
than the one you wrote your original email about. I've seen this
argument before - creating a 1:1 transformation between an idea and a
natural number - and my response to that is: Copyright is not about
the idea itself. Copyright is about the ability of the author to pick
the *right* number out of the infinite pile of numbers and say - this
is it. Because, frankly, most of the pile is garbage.

-- Arik

---

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 01:43:43 +0300

Hi Arik,

> parallel lines - did you mean the two lines f(x)=0 and f(x)=1?

Yes.  Or you can define it as f(x,y)= x^y, and only f(0,y) and f(1,y)
will be straight, parallel lines.  For any other x it will not be a
straight line.

> Well, you can design a 2nd order polynomial for every two numbers,

I was referring to numbers who remain the same when multiplied by
themselves, and therefore x^2 = x.

> I'm sorry but I didn't understand how you prove your claim.

It's complicated.  In short, my claim is that if Godel's
incompleteness theorem is true, then the theory is not consistent (not
only incomplete).  And Godel's incompleteness theorem is true for any
deterministic logical theory who is not trivial.
[http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/georgia.html]

But it is worth proving in more details.  I'll think about it.  If you
want, you can read my view about it in other articles, such as the
following two:

http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=20
http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=22

I also came to the conclusion that the speed of light is not constant,
and more generally speaking that constants don't exist.  I wrote about
it a few articles:

http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?cat=3

> stream-of-consciousness quality - is that how you created it?

I read your question again, but I don't understand what you mean by
"stream of consciousness".  Can you explain?

> What were you in for? Schizophrenia?

Technically, yes.  They call it schizophrenia.  But I don't like their
definitions so much.  Let's say I'm different than them, I think
differently, and I behave differently.  I also did things which seem
illogical to most people, and actually I admit it was a mistake.  So
they decided I'm "sick" and I need "treatment".  I don't consider it
treatment, I consider it punishment for being nonconformist and doing
"strange" things.  I also don't consider myself as sick (not
physically and not mentally).

> find that people will tend to push you away from society.

I know.  But I allow myself to make exceptions once in a while.  I
define my own terms sometimes.  If people know me, they will
understand what I mean when I say google.  I don't have to do
everything like everybody else.

> is it. Because, frankly, most of the pile is garbage.

I know.  If you're the first one to discover something and publish it,
you can be considered sometimes as the one who "invented" it or
"created" it.  Because the chances of two people to publish exactly
the same book, or melody, is almost zero.  That's why our society
allows copyrights.  But to have copyright on a file means having
copyright on a number.  For example, there are prime numbers known as
"illegal primes".

Thanks, and I'm glad you liked my article.

Actually, my articles are written in a logical order.  The first one
is called "The axiom of choice" [http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=1].
 If you read them in the order I wrote them, maybe they will make more
sense to you.  But not all of them are on the same topic, you don't
have to read all of them if you don't want to.  I wrote most of them
last month (except the first two, which I wrote about two years ago).

Uri.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 01:19:44 -0500

> http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?p=22

I'll just wait until you formulate a proof.

> http://www.speedy.net/uri/blog/?cat=3

Do you mean all constants or physical constants?

The speed of light is constant in a particular uniform medium. What
you're claiming in your post is that there can't be a uniform medium,
it's a different claim.

> "stream of consciousness".  Can you explain?

There are states of consciousness where you think random thoughts and
each thought follows the rest by pure association, for example you may
think of a stone and then a wall and then of wailing and then of
ultra-orthodox and then of black coats and then of uniform and then of
an army and then of wars and then of Iraq and then of Bush and then of
Anarchists and then of San Francisco. This particular set of objects
(and I didn't include all of the information about the thoughts
regarding these objects) was conjured by association from the original
object, because of the particular associations in my mind and my
particular makeup. If you managed to link these objects with one
another it means you have followed my associations. Looking back at
them I think some of them are rather universal and some are probably
not easily guessed by anyone.

My question is - considering the topics you covered in that post -
were they selected based on associations in your mind?

> everything like everybody else.

So, here is my opinion: I don't believe that you are different in the
way you think. I believe most people think that if people knew what
goes on in their minds they would think they are mentally ill, but the
people around them, obviously, think the same thing.

The behavior part is more difficult to come to term with. Behaving
differently will, as you have experienced, get you expelled from
society. Talking about what's in your mind without filtering it to fit
what people think other people must be thinking is included in such
behavior.

My personal, subjective and unsubstantiated opinion is that
Schizophrenia is the inability to control these behavioral expressions
to conform to at least some basic shared concept of what's accepted
(and this concept is shared in a particular society and differs
between societies).

Actually it's the second paragraph - the one in which you decide to
rename googol to google regardless of the mathematical context of the
discussion, is what prompted me to scroll up to my question "What were
you in for?" and add "Schizophrenia?" as the guess. In this paragraph
you demonstrate that regardless of the fact that I don't know you -
not enough to know about the fact that you use a different word to
describe the googol or google - you elected to use that word and even
justify your use.

> copyright on a number.  For example, there are prime numbers known as

Again - the copyright is not "on a number" - it's on the work that has
been performed selecting this number out of the infinity of numbers,
because unlike most of the numbers in the pile, this one has a meaning
that is recognizable as having value, at least to the person doing the
job. I reserve the right to think it's crap, though, but that's
subjective opinion or critique. Also, I think you'll have to represent
the number you selected in a different manner (i.e. other than the
number) because the numbers in their numerical representation are in
the public domain.

> last month (except the first two, which I wrote about two years ago).

It will take me a while.

-- Arik

---

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:19:27 +0300

Hi Arik,

> Do you mean all constants or physical constants?

All constants, including physical constants, but also mathematical
constants.  I realized that constants cannot be defined.  That's one
of the reasons why I wrote 1=0.

> you're claiming in your post is that there can't be a uniform medium,

The average speed of light may be constant in a particular uniform
medium.  But the speed of a specific stream of light, such as a
photon, can never be constant.

It can only be constant if we define space and time according to the
speed of light, which I suspect we do.  For example, we can define one
second as "the time is takes light to pass X kilometers".  But in
reality, I think the speed of light is infinite.  Light can be at many
places at the same time.  Space and time are illusions, their
existence is subjective because the way we perceive them, but they
don't have any objective existence.

> were they selected based on associations in your mind?

Probably yes.  I don't know.  I don't completely understand how I
think.  But the topics I covered in that post are also related to
other posts of mine - I didn't just select topics "out of the blue".

> describe the googol or google - you elected to use that word and even

So, respelling googol is an evidence that I have schizophrenia?  I
will not deny it, since I admit both (respelling googol and having
schizophrenia).  Actually, I don't even know how they pronounce
googol.  I checked [http://www.answers.com/googol], and it appears to
me that there are more than one ways to pronounce googol, and at least
one of them sounds like Google.  If it does sound like Google, I don't
see any reason to put another o between the g and the l.

By the way, in the first article I wrote about google, I did explain
what it is (10^100).

Anyway, the word schizophrenia is used to specify some stigma
regarding specific people.  There is no objective way to define who
has schizophrenia and who's not, like there are some ways with real
diseases (such as cancer or AIDS).  Schizophrenia is not a disease,
it's a stigma.  When you have it, you don't feel pain and you don't
suffer.  Therefore, the term "he's suffering from schizophrenia"
actually means "he's suffering from us diagnosing him with
schizophrenia".  Actually, people diagnosed with schizophrenia do
suffer emotional pain sometimes, but I believe all of us do.

My view about schizophrenia is very similar to the view expressed in
this article:

Schizophrenia: A Nonexistent Disease
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm

[quote: "The truth is that the label schizophrenia, like the labels
pornography or mental illness, indicates disapproval of that to which
the label is applied and nothing more.  Like "mental illness" or
pornography, "schizophrenia" does not exist in the sense that cancer
and heart disease exist but exists only in the sense that good and bad
exist.  As with all other so-called mental illnesses, a diagnosis of
"schizophrenia" is a reflection of the speaker's or "diagnostician's"
values or ideas about how a person "should" be, often coupled with the
false (or at least unproven) assumption that the disapproved thinking,
emotions, or behavior results from a biological abnormality.
Considering the many ways it has been used, it's clear "schizophrenia"
has no particular meaning other than "I dislike it."  Because of this,
I lose some of my respect for mental health professionals when I hear
them use the word schizophrenia in a way that indicates they think it
is a real disease.]

> number) because the numbers in their numerical representation are in

If the copyright is on a specific file - which is a sequence of bits -
then it is a number.  Even if this file represents a picture (for
example), in order to see the picture you need a software who is able
to display pictures from files.  The fact is that the file itself is
not a picture - the picture is just our interpretation of it.  The
file itself is just a sequence of ones and zeros in a specific order.
But if the picture is copyrighted, the file is copyrighted too, and so
is the number it represents.

Uri.

---

From: "Omer Shapira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:07:35 -0700

> "stream of consciousness". Can you explain?

Stream of Consciousness, a style of writing in which multiple lines of
narrative intersect and form a structure. Joyce (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Joyce) is infamous for this style; Meir
Shalev uses it sometimes as well.

-- 
Sincerely Yours,
Omer Shapira

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 21:06:37 +0300

On Wed, May 02, 2007, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero":
> I realized that constants cannot be defined.

And I realized that the notion that constants cannot be defined, cannot be
defined.

> think.

Neither do we. This is why writers normally try to think on what they're
writing, proofread it, and focus on making the essay easy to read and
understand by others. Apparently, you forgot all about this, and decided
to just go ahead and use your own private terminology, your own logic,
your own language, and who cares about the readers.

> the label is applied and nothing more.

I find this nonsense. Why is, for example, "pornography", a useless label,
indicating disapproval and nothing more? Pornography has a very real meaning,
which is depictions of sexual situations, through pictures, film, and so on.
People who like to watch pornography also call it that (or more usually
in the US, "porn"). Most content can easily be classified by everyone as
being "porn" or "non-porn" (except, of course, some border cases), and this
doesn't mean that you need to disapprove of porn. Any more than anyone can
classify a movie as being a "cartoon" or not a cartoon, and it doesn't mean
you disapprove of cartoons.

Similarly, the symptoms of schizorphrenia can be defined, and people
classified whether they show these symptoms or not. It doesn't mean the
doctors understand what exactly causes this condition - whether it's some
sort of infection, a certain gene, or what, or perhaps there are several
different causes. Defining a medical condition, or "illness" or "disease"
doesn't make it bad, or people with it outcasts. The "common cold" is a
generic name for many types of somewhat similar virus-caused illnesses,
and yet when you have the common cold, you can accept that and not say
"the common cold doesn't exist" or "it's just a label used to show the
speaker's dislike for sneezing people". It doesn't automatically mean that
people with this illness should be shuned, jailed, or shot. But there's
nothing wrong with using this label.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |    Wednesday, May  2 2007, 15 Iyyar 5767
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Ms Piggy's last words: "I'm pink,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |therefore I'm ham."

---

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 22:45:25 +0300

Hi Nadav,

> your own language, and who cares about the readers.

I would agree to everything you said (almost), but the last remark
"and who cares about the readers" is an insult.  Apparently, you
forgot all about tact, and decided to just go ahead and use your own
criticism, your own disrespect, your own insults, and who cares about
your readers who are insulted by you.

> you disapprove of cartoons.

Not everyone defines pornography the same way.  What some people might
view as art, others view as pornography.  For example, naked people in
pictures, movies, theater or in paintings.  I don't think everyone
agrees whether it is or is not pornography.  Is a movie that contains
naked people, or half naked people (topless) a pornographic movie?  Is
a movie that contains sex between men and women, or men and men, or
women and women, a pornographic movie?  I think it depends whom you're
asking.  And also, pornography depends on geography.  Pornography in
Iran is not necessarily the same as pornography in France (just an
example).

> classified whether they show these symptoms or not.

I don't think the symptoms of schizophrenia are clearly defined.  But
you don't have to agree with me.  We would probably agree on the fact
that we don't agree whether schizophrenia is a real illness or not.

Uri.

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:02:01 +0300

On Wed, May 02, 2007, Uri Even-Chen wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] One and Zero":
> asking.

This is why I gave the cartoon example. Everyone how to define a 100%
cartoon is (e.g., Disney's "Bambi") and a 100% non-cartoon (e.g, the movie
"Home Alone"). But what about a movie which is part-cartoon, part-non-
cartoon, say, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? What about a movie 99% non-cartoon
but with a 1 minute cartoon segment in it? Does it really matter if we
can't rigidly call such movies "cartoon" or "non-cartoon"? Does it detract
from the validity of using these labels?

Similarly, a movie can be 99% family movie, and 1% nude scenes. It's not
100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between. Those who
for some reason *oppose* porn will not watch such a movie, because they
don't want to see even one second of porn. Those who *love* porn will not
watch such a movie, because it has too much family stuff and too little of
the "good stuff". Again, the fact that for this specific movie is part
porn, part non-porn, doesn't mean that porn cannot be defined.

> And also, pornography depends on geography.  Pornography in

You're right that some people define porn different than others. For some,
porn includes topless women, or even woman without long sleeves. For others,
porn has to include completely naked individuals, and sex scenes. But again,
so what? The definition of cartoon is similar. Bambi is obviously a cartoon,
but is "Toy Story" (a computer generated movie) called a cartoon? Is a movie
made from filming play-dough (plastelina) figures, "a cartoon"? The fact
that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, May  3 2007, 15 Iyyar 5767
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Experience is what causes a person to
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |make new mistakes instead of old ones.

---

From: "Uri Even-Chen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 14:27:49 +0300

Hi Nadav,

> 100% non-porn, it's not 100% porn - it's something in between.

Not everyone would agree with your definition.  For some people, such
a movie is 100% non-porn.  Nudity is not always pornography.  It
depends whom you're asking.

> that we can argue about the definition, doesn't mean we can't make one.

If each of us can make his own definition, then who says one
definition is better than others?  You can define schizophrenia
however you want to define it, and I can define it however I want to
define it or not define it at all.  If psychiatry professor Thomas
Szasz says "There is, in short, no such thing as schizophrenia"
[http://www.antipsychiatry.org/schizoph.htm], who says your definition
is better than his?  If you agree that there is no objective
definition to schizophrenia, so what's wrong with not defining it at
all?  It's like defining who's pretty and who's not, who's morally
good and who's morally bad.  There is and will never be any consensus.
 Of course you can define it, for example some people might be
considered ugly by you.  But would you agree that your state will
define who's ugly, and label those people as ugly people for the rest
of their lives?  That's what they do when labeling people as mentally
ill or schizophrenics.  The label is written and saved for the rest of
their lives.

There are many articles on www.antipsychiatry.org (and other websites)
who deal with this issue.  For example:

Psychiatric Stigma Follows You Everywhere You Go for the Rest of Your Life
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/stigma.htm

I would recommend to read an entire article before labeling it "nonsense".

By the way, that's what they do to prisoners too, by labeling them as
"immoral people" for the rest of their lives.  But I know very moral
people who were in prison.  For example, Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson
Mandela, Abie Nathan and Tali Fahima, to name just a few.  Of course,
you might not agree with me about specific people.  But I hope you
don't think that ANY person who was in prison is immoral.

Uri.