HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: samuel@front.se
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math
Subject: Alephs (Was Re: Number of numbers)
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:53:58 GMT
Organization: Samuel Gustaf Siren

In article <1992Dec30.091130.2068@pollux.lu.se>, magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus 
Olsson) writes (as an answer to a previous posting from me):

> You really say
> that "Aleph-0 denotes the cardinality of an enumerable set (such as
> the set of integers)". "Cardinality" is a measure of how many elements
> there are in a set; two sets are said to be of the same cardinality if
> their elements can be set in a one-to-one correspondence to each other.
>[...]
> Same here; C is called the cardinal number of the set of real numbers.
>[...]
>>  - "Aleph-1" denominates the next infinite number larger than Aleph-0.
> 
> Actually, I believe Cantor defined it as the cardinality of the set of
> all subsets of a set of cardinality aleph-0, and then went on to prove
> that there can't exist any cardinal number between aleph-0 and aleph-1.
> 
>>  - It is believed that Aleph-1 = C (the continuum hyothesis), but this
>>    has not been proven yet !
> 
> In fact, it was proved in the sixties (I think) that the continuum
> hypothesis in neither provable nor disprovable in ordinary set theory.
> What this means is that you can construct a set theory in which it
> holds, and another set theory in which it doesn't hold. Both these set
> theories are consistent, and all the usual theorems about sets (that
> don't involve the continuum hypothesis) are true in both theories.

As I understand what Magnus is writing, one can actually construct a set 
theory where Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < C.
(Sorry if I'm sloppy with the terminology again !).

Questions
=========

 1. Is it possible to constuct set theories where 
     A. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-oo < C    ?
     B. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-oo = C    ?
     C. Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < Aleph-3 < ... < Aleph-K  = C    ?

 2. If the answer to 1A is YES then is it possible to construct a set theory
    where
        Aleph-0 < Aleph-1 < Aleph-2 < ...
        Aleph-(Aleph-0) < Aleph-(Aleph-1) < Aleph-(Aleph-2) < ...
        Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-0)) < Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-1)) < ...
        Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-(Aleph-0))) < ...
        etc... < C
    or anything similar ?
    Maybe this is a totally irrelevant question (Can 'cardinalities' be used
    as indeces ?), but my mind is completely 'Alephed' at this stage of the 
    discussion ! :-)

/SS
-- 
+----------------------+--------------------------------------+
|                      |        / \                           |
| Samuel Gustaf Siren  |      __!_/_                          |
| SAMUEL@front.se      |    / \ |  / \                        |
|                      |   |/  || | \__oW)----------          |
| All opinions and     |   !! / /\ \                          |
| questions are my     |     / /  \ \                         |
| own /SS              |    //    //                          |
|                      |   /|    ((                           |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Number of numbers (Was Re: PI)
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 31 Dec 92 12:42:08 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <1992Dec30.010852.143@front.se> samuel@front.se writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.093759.3737@pollux.lu.se>, magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus
>Olsson) writes:
>
>> But please note that Samuel wrote "most of the
>> non-rational/non-algebraic" above. He didn't claim that *all*
>> transcendental (non-algebraic) numbers shared pi's property of having
>> a pseudo-random decimal expansion.
>
>Now that I have thought some more about it, I'm modifying my statement to
>be "ALMOST ALL trancendental numbers".
>
> [ ... proof that almost all transcendental numbers are "random" ... ]
>
>But maybe this is old stuff. If this is the case, does anybody know if there
>is some common denomination for "such trancendental" numbers ?

Yes, they're called "normal" numbers.

>(These numbers and a lot more are described in "The Emperor's New Mind" by
>Roger Penrose, Oxford University Press 1989, an exellent book which I
>strongly recommend)

I don't. Penrose may be a good mathematician, but his opinions on
artificial intelligence belong in the looney bin.

--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......

"I blame you for the moonlit sky and the dream that died with the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights when I wonder why are the seas still dry
Don't blame me, sleeping satellite"                              (Tasmin Archer)

--

Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18441 alt.conspiracy:13560
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.conspiracy,rec.arts.sf-written
Subject: The Net achieves major-conspiracy status!
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:19:50 GMT
Distribution: world

The year-end double issue of "The Economist" (widely considered the best
general-news magazine in the English language) includes an article "Being One
Of Us" that offers a slightly tongue-in-cheek tour of the "networks that run
the world".  The list includes:

	The Old Etonians                               (England's Elite)
	Cambridge University Conservative Association  (British Tories)
	Skull And Bones                                (American ditto)
	Inspection Generale Des Finances               (French gov't)
	The Doon School                                (India)
	Law School of Tokyo University                 (Japan)
	The Rhodes Scholars
	Mont Pelerin Society                           (Free-market economists)
	Committee to Defend the Workers                (Poland)
	Soviet Communist Party
	Muslim Brotherhood
	Broederbund                                    (White South Africa)
	Opus Dei                                       (Catholics)
	Freemasonry
	The Trilateral Commission

This would have been of only passing interest to netters.  But the last
two listings are the kicker.  They are, respectively,

	USENET/Internet
	The Bavarian Illuminati  

Find the article and read it.  The Bavarian Illuminati entry is particularly
funny -- it reads like it was written by Robert Anton Wilson.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
From: avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: IBMs true monsters?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 15:35:24 -0500
Organization: UUNET Technologies Inc, Falls Church, VA
NNTP-Posting-Host: rodan.uu.net

In article <92359.113918APPMS@CUNYVM.BITNET> Alexandre Pechtchanski <APPMS@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>IMHO, it's developer's nightmare (I can't imagine somebody flaming me
>for that ;-).  I used to work on Soviet clones of the beasty, and
>even used to think of them as of real computers (that was before we
>bought PDP-11- ok, ok, I'm donning my asbesto suit already ;).

At the time DEMOS team reached out to IBM/370 clones (the ES Row II
machines) we already had some experience with VAXen (including genuine
780s). Then, i was really impressed with the raw power of those IBM/370
monsters. ES-1045 (somewhere around the lower end of 370s) IS FASTER
than VAX-11/780 and occupies about two times as much space (don't
forget it was the Soviet clone, not the original thing!).

It only takes to trash IBM OS/370 and to load a real system (aka UNIX)
instead.

Another thing i really like about those machines is their built-in
error-detection and diagnostic circuitry. I feel really unsafe on
those modern bus things providing nothing more than parity checks.
IMHO IBM made a BIG mistake abandoning their mainframes in favor of
micros (another mistake was to do their own software but at the time
they had no choice -- isn't it interesing that hw manufacturers are
generally known for crappy software?)

--vadim
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: wheelan@cs.mcgill.ca (Bill HEELAN)
Subject: Re: Worlds wierdest system crash!
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:52:06 GMT

From article <1992Dec22.084501.17223@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, by sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth):
[...]
> I don't know how familliar people are with this story, but I was once told
> that the computer term 'bug' actually was derived from an incident in the
> early or mid-50's in which a dead moth shorted out a magnetic drum.
> 
> Simon

  I don't know...  I think this is a case of folk entomology.

                                                   - Bill
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Subject: Re: IBMs true monsters?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:33:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.204107.7851@vlsi.polymtl.ca> d40937@boole
(Jean Yves Desbiens) writes:

>students records managing, batch job processing ( the dreaded JPL ),

     That's JCL (Job Control Language).  Although if JPL has IBM
mainframes they probably dread it too.

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
"The purpose of JCL is to give you something to debug
once you have your programs running."  -- me

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Subject: 80C86 (Re: Is 4004 the first ...)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:53:23 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1993Jan3.053748.14674@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
by baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman):
> On a side note, does anyone have an idea (I'm sure I'll hear a few :)) of
> exactly where the 80C86 fits into the x86 family? I assume it was pre-286.

The 80C86 is a C-mos version of the 8086.  Nothing more or less.  That
means that it runs at lower power than the 8086.  If you want a radiation
hardened launch certified mil specs microprocessor, the 80C86 may be the
most available, with a cost not too much over $10,000 per chip.

Generally, there are C-mos (and sometimes C-mos on SoS substrate)
followups for any microprocessor that becomes widely accepted and
is a big enough improvement over its predecessors to be worth the
extra engineering effort.  (that is, assuming that the original
wasn't already done in C-mos.)  If you build low power stuff, or
radiation hardened stuff, you want one.  You may have to wait a bit,
though, since they don't even start design of such stuff until the
market is clearly there, which is usually years after the original
chip is introduced.
				Doug Jones
				jones@cs.uiowa.edu

want
From: gardner_c@apollo.hp.com (Cal Gardner)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Is 4004 the first microprocessor ?
Date: 24 Dec 92 04:00:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

Seems to me that they went as follows:

  4004 ==> 8008 ==> 8080 but why do I

have '4040' in my mind?

Cal gardner_c@apollo.hp.com
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.computers:18257 sci.math:17336 comp.compression:4210
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math,comp.compression
Subject: Re: Compressing decimal expansion of pi (was Re: PI)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:14:34 +0100
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

In alt.folklore.computers, article <1h7f7sINNkp9@function.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
  edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes:
> In article <Bzo3p1.6I7.2@cs.cmu.edu> tgl+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Lane) writes:
> >Why not just convert the decimal representation to binary, and store the
> >binary expansion of pi?  That gives you log2(10) = 3.322 bits per decimal
> >digit.  Assuming that the digits of pi are actually random, this is the best
> >that can be done.
> 
> But since they are not random, we can do much better.  Write a program
> for computation of the digits of pi (even an inefficient one),
> and use that as your "encoded" version of pi.
> 
If you're following _that_ argument, I can do even better and store pi in
zero bits. Reason: Every digit is fixed. Therefore the information content
of pi, stipulating that you're encoding pi, is zero.

-- 
I know this world needs help.  That's why some of my generation are
kind of crazy and rebels.  We wonder if we're going to be alive when
we're thirty.
                -- Roberta Lincoln, "Assignment Earth," stardate unknown
-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: using /bin/ed (Was Re: Famous flame wars, examples please?)
From: bryan@brunswk.amigans.gen.nz (Bryan Taylor)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:26:35 GMT+1
Organization: Home, sweet thistle patch...

russell@alpha3.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Russell Schulz) writes:
> davei@wam.umd.edu (The One True Dave) writes:
> 
> of course, anyone trying to admin a Unix system who knows emacs or vi and
> not ed may not enjoy the day they boot and can only mount a minimal file
> system that doesn't include /usr/bin.

and of course, when you discover that the vi you have cannot cope with 
_very_ long files and can only be edited with ed/sed etc. I took the 
steep learning curve one night from 11 till 3am :) to retrieve a 
library's returned books file.

bryan@brunswk.amigans.gen.nz (Bryan Taylor)
Oxymorons: Military Intelligence or Government Servant
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: PDP-11: A Physical Threat :)
From: don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (Don Stokes)
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:11:45 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Wolery

azog@spatula.rent.com (Billy D'Augustine) writes:
> Funny you should mention this. This is exactly what almost happened to
> a friend of mine. I got an 11/34a with two Pertek RK05 type drives, and
> after getting the stuff into my basement, we tried to get the BA11-K
> back into the rack. His slider rail was in, but mine wasnt, so I 
> tugged it out, and missed his foot by a short inch. Left a little
> crater in the cement floor, too. You couldnt belive how happy I was
> that it missed his foot! 

I believe it.  The centre of gravity on a BA11-K is really odd, all because
of this overkill power supply.  It's nearly impossible to put the thing
into a rack single handed (I tried), not because it's too heavy (although
it *is* heavy) but because you have to stand in front of the box and all
the weight is at the back; someone my size (about 5' 8", average build) 
doesn't have the body weight to balance it....

As for the fans.....

--
Don Stokes, ZL2TNM (DS555)                        don@zl2tnm.gen.nz (home)
Network Manager, Computing Services Centre            don@vuw.ac.nz (work)
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand              +64-4-495-5052
From: rhg@cpsolv.CPS.COM (Richard H. Gumpertz)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Worlds wierdest system crash!
Date: 24 Dec 92 12:21:28 GMT
Organization: Computer Problem Solving, Leawood, Kansas, USA

In article <BzI8CB.JrL@wimsey.bc.ca> chrisp@wimsey.bc.ca (Chris Phillips) writes:
}I used to work in a video store that was using a Commodore XT clone running
}an archaic point of sale program. It was possible to crash the machine in
}such a way as to disable the power switch(No lie).You had to pull the plug
}to bring it back. I took the machine apart and looked, t was a mechanical 
}switch and to this day I have no idea how it was able to do that. But the
}crash was repeatable.

If the CPU could put a short on the power supply (perhaps such as driving a
cash-drawer opening relay continuously) it could, I suppose, cause a breaker
to trip.  If the breaker is integral with the power switch, it might refuse
to reset ...

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  | Richard H. Gumpertz      rhg@CPS.COM       VOICE & FAX: (913) 642-1777 |
  | Computer Problem Solving, 8905 Mohawk Lane, Leawood, Kansas 66206-1749 |
  ==========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,sci.math
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Randomness of pi (was: PI)
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 09:20:35 GMT

In article <1hrms5INN95o@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> john@gu.uwa.edu.au (John West) writes:
>The digits of PI are *not* random - every time you calculate them, you'll get
>the same result. They may share many properties that we like to see in random
>numbers, but they are not random. 

John, have you ever heard the term "pseudo-random" before?

>I have never been satisfied that there is
>an ASCII representation of even a single sentence in there anywhere.

Well, if you look hard enough... And you shouldn't be such a chauvinist
as to limit yourself to your own language, or even to ASCII... :-) 

(Before you flame: this was a _joke_).

Actually, as far as I know the pseudo-randomness of pi remains an unproved
hypothesis. One of the reasons for computing large numbers of decimal
places of pi is to perform statistical tests on it. Again as far as I
know, so far the digits *do* seem "random", i.e. according to the
statistical tests, an algorithm for computing pi behaves as a good
random-number generator. 

Of course the decimals aren't _truly_ random, but it seems that pi is
a better source for pseudo-random numbers than e.g. the rand(3)
function in Unix.

>Not really the best group for this discussion, but a.f.c is full of irrelevant
>rubbish at the best of times.

Then please don't lower the S/N ratio even further by adding a lot of
rude and irrelevant flames, like calling relvant posts "lots of rubbish". 

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: dave@lynx.mn.org (David Messer)
Subject: Re: PI
Organization: Lynx Data Systems
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:48:28 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.195328.19162@icaen.uiowa.edu> dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert) writes:
 >
 >It isn't proven (to my knowledge at least) that PI is nonterminating.  If

This happens to not be the case.  It is actually quite easy to prove
that PI is nonterminating, however, this posting is too narrow to
contain the proof. 
-- 
It's not my fault!                   | David Messer       dave@lynx.mn.org -or-
    I voted for Andre Marrou.        | Lynx Data Systems  ..!tcnet!lynxds!dave
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology,alt.geek,alt.non.sequitur,alt.licker.store
From: jbuhler@owlnet.rice.edu (Jeremy Daniel Buhler)
Subject: Re: Proper pronounciation of 'Kibo'
Summary: Kibo sighted in local salsa club 
Keywords: Kibo CIA Snarf Somalia PGP
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:28:56 GMT

>> The verb form is conjugated, in Russian, as
<much nuked>
> I presume that Kibyat' is an imperfective verb ? :-)

For the Russian impaired amongst us, here is a conjectural conjugation for
Kibo in Spanish:

Inf: kebir - (int.) to be, act like, or impersonate Kibo

kibo
kibes
kibe
kebimos
kebi's
kiben
<voseo pos. kebi's as well>

Note associated imperfections, eg kibio' (preterite 3rd person sing), kebi'os
(2nd person plural vos. command), kibieramos (preterite subjunctive 1st person 
plural) etc.

Langugage Lab type examples:
Yo estoy kibiendo.
Ojala' que kiba pronto.
No se kibe aqui'.
!Kibamos!

BTW, it is conjectured that kibo is derived from a Greek original, hence
the use of "k" (very rare in Spanish).  Attempts at modernization have 
generated the alternative spelling "quebir".

BTBTW, the reflexive form "kebirse" connotes "to fool oneself into believing
that one is actually Kibo while performing the actions denoted by 'kebir'".

Ex: !Kiba'monos!"

This concludes our lesson for today.  And remember:
"En tierra de ciegos...
		    ...se chocan mucho."
-- 
<      Jeremy Buhler        * In real life: jbuhler@owlnet.rice.edu >
< Rice U., Houston, TX, USA * Ceci n'est pas une .sig - zut alors!  >
< All opinions expressed herein are my own and should not be in any > 
<     way construed to represent the views held by Jeremy Buhler    >
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: PI
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:51:46 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren) writes:

>Since we're talking about Pi (yum!), I feel I must point out one of my
>very favorite 'fortune' quotes ...

> The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to
> constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every
> appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA
> statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant.  This
> also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change.
>                 -- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers

Not quite as stupid as it sounds. If you want to run your program
on a machine with better precision, you would want another value
for pi. Pi wouldn't really change, of course, but the desired
approximation would.

Klaus O K
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: cpc@shell.portal.com (Chris Cebelenski)
Subject: Re: Is 4004 the first microprocessor ?
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:49:28 GMT

In article <BzrJtM.703@NeoSoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <BzqwGy.6AC@apollo.hp.com> gardner_c@apollo.hp.com (Cal Gardner) writes:
>> Seems to me that they went as follows:
>
>>   4004 ==> 8008 ==> 8080 but why do I
>
>> have '4040' in my mind?
>  [...]
 
 As a semi related thread, does anyone know what processors were used
 in home video game systems? (Atari VCS, Magnavox Odysessy, Intelevision,
 etc.)  Past and present?

Chris Cebelenski - On Location from Texas.
These comments are all mine, and if you ask,I'll deny everything!
cpc@shell.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
From: syswtr@iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu
Subject: Re: 80C86 (Re: Is 4004 the first ...)
Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:16:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.205323.26282@news.uiowa.edu>, jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
> From article <1993Jan3.053748.14674@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
> by baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman):
>> On a side note, does anyone have an idea (I'm sure I'll hear a few :)) of
>> exactly where the 80C86 fits into the x86 family? I assume it was pre-286.
> 
> The 80C86 is a C-mos version of the 8086.  Nothing more or less.  That
> means that it runs at lower power than the 8086.  If you want a radiation
> hardened launch certified mil specs microprocessor, the 80C86 may be the
> most available, with a cost not too much over $10,000 per chip.

  Save for the fact that the sole vendor of the chip was unable to make
them rad-hard.  Seems they suffer SEU when in the Van Allen belts...

Oh well, back to the '85...

Willy
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers