Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.
[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]
What is the relation of this to physics in general, and the theories of relativity in particular?
If there is no relation, it does not belong there. Please do not crosspost mindlessly.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity so that the possible reason lands in the right place.
Hi,
503 Service Temporarily Unavailable https://stackoverflow.com/users/855543/pointedears
LoL
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.
[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]
What is the relation of this to physics in general, and the theories of
relativity in particular?
If there is no relation, it does not belong there.-a Please do not
crosspost
mindlessly.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity so that the possible reason lands in the
right
place.
Hi,
Well I even don't know why I came up with
the NPM hack hypothesis. Saw something
on youtube. Maybe they just do maintenance.
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
rCLThe high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
-aare generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.rCY
rCo Frank Herbert, Destination: Void
The comming age of analog computing might affect
astrophisics, like telescope image processing
who knows what. It probably does already.
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
503 Service Temporarily Unavailable
https://stackoverflow.com/users/855543/pointedears
LoL
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.
[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]
What is the relation of this to physics in general, and the theories of
relativity in particular?
If there is no relation, it does not belong there.-a Please do not
crosspost
mindlessly.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity so that the possible reason lands in the
right
place.
Hi,
Well I even don't know why I came up with
the NPM hack hypothesis. Saw something
on youtube. Maybe they just do maintenance.
In the coming age of analog computing,
symbolic logic means nothing:
rCLThe high data-rate sense perception and
identification abilities of the human system
mostly bypass verbal/analytic awareness. We
-aare generally conscious of a cognitive
recognition after the fact. In this way, what
we understand as consciousness has to be
identified as a reflexive monitoring ability
with quite limited application. To produce
consciousness (artificial or otherwise) we
are stepping down, not up.rCY
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy Beaver Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the Rado's Sigma Function) is an uncomputable problem from information theory. The input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents the complexity of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine. http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
Modern accelerators rCo GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, and custom matrix
engines rCo use a different computational substrate:
Instead of Boolean logic:
raA Bulk linear algebra over vectors/tensors
Instead of instruction-by-instruction control:
raA Dataflow graphs
Instead of sequential compute on registers:
raA Massively parallel fused-multiply-add units
Instead of manually orchestrated loops:
raA High-level declarative specs (XLA, MLIR, TVM)
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy Beaver
Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the Rado's Sigma
Function) is an uncomputable problem from information theory. The
input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents the complexity
of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine.
http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
I am doing the wake-up call until everybody
gets ear-bleeding. It just too cringe to
see the symbolics computing morons struggle
with connectionism. But given that humans
have a brain with neurons, it should be obvious
that symbolism and connectionism are just two
sides of the same coin.
Good Luck!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
Modern accelerators rCo GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, and custom matrix
engines rCo use a different computational substrate:
Instead of Boolean logic:
raA Bulk linear algebra over vectors/tensors
Instead of instruction-by-instruction control:
raA Dataflow graphs
Instead of sequential compute on registers:
raA Massively parallel fused-multiply-add units
Instead of manually orchestrated loops:
raA High-level declarative specs (XLA, MLIR, TVM)
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy
Beaver Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the Rado's
Sigma Function) is an uncomputable problem from information theory.
The input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents the
complexity of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine.
http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
On 12/1/2025 11:25 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
On the other hand, neural networks were
always outside. So were quantum computers.
It was never the only one and never the
most powerful one.
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy. You would need an
element of non-determinism, or if you want
call it randomness. Because PRAM has this
instructions, ERCW, CRCW, etc..
- Concurrent read concurrent write (CRCW)rCo
multiple processors can read and write. A
CRCW PRAM is sometimes called a concurrent
random-access machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_RAM
Modelling via von Neuman what happens there
can be quite challenging. At least it doesn't
allow for a direct modelling.
What a later processor sees, depends extremly
on the timing and which processor "wins" the
write.
Also I don't know what it would buy you
intellectually to simulate a PRAM on a random
von Neuman machine. The random von Neuman
machine could need more steps than the PRAM
in summary, because it has to simulate a PRAM.
But I guess its the intellectual questioning
that needs also a revision when confronted
with the new architecture of unified memory
and tensor processing cores.
Bye
Maciej Wo+|niak schrieb:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy.
Hi,
PRAM effects are a little bit contrived in AI
accelerators, since they work with matrix tiles,
that are locally cached to the tensor core.
But CRCW is quite cool for machine learning.
When the weights get updated. ChatGPT suggested
me to read this paper:
Hogwild!: A Lock-Free Approach to
Parallelizing Stochastic Gradient Descent
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5730
Didn't read yet...
You might also have read the recent report how
Google trained Gemini. They had to deal with other
issues as well, like failure of a whole
tensore core.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy. You would need an
element of non-determinism, or if you want
call it randomness. Because PRAM has this
instructions, ERCW, CRCW, etc..
- Concurrent read concurrent write (CRCW)rCo
multiple processors can read and write. A
CRCW PRAM is sometimes called a concurrent
random-access machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_RAM
Modelling via von Neuman what happens there
can be quite challenging. At least it doesn't
allow for a direct modelling.
What a later processor sees, depends extremly
on the timing and which processor "wins" the
write.
Also I don't know what it would buy you
intellectually to simulate a PRAM on a random
von Neuman machine. The random von Neuman
machine could need more steps than the PRAM
in summary, because it has to simulate a PRAM.
But I guess its the intellectual questioning
that needs also a revision when confronted
with the new architecture of unified memory
and tensor processing cores.
Bye
Maciej Wo+|niak schrieb:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
On 12/1/2025 5:12 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy.
I've never said it is easy. Some randomness
or pseudorandomness existed for a long time,
it's not enough for me to speak about a
different architecture.
On 12/1/2025 5:12 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy.
I've never said it is easy. Some randomness
or pseudorandomness existed for a long time,
it's not enough for me to speak about a
different architecture.
Hi,
The bottom line is often, PRAMs might be
closer to physics. Especially for certain
machine learning algorithms or questions
from modelling perception or action. You
might get better results if you model the
problem in terms of Boltzman machines,
or whatever from the arsenal of physics.
Bye
P.S.: Whats was a little popular for a certain
moment of time, was also the idea of partical
swarm optimization, for machine learning or
for problem solving:
Particle swarm optimization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization
Not sure how much of it got supperseeded,
it mostlikey survides in AlphaEvolve by Google,
looks like a genetic algorithm thing, which
is another name for this "physics".
Maciej Wo+|niak schrieb:
On 12/1/2025 5:12 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Simulation is not so easy.
I've never said it is easy. Some randomness
or pseudorandomness existed for a long time,
it's not enough for me to speak about a
different architecture.
503 Service Temporarily Unavailable https://stackoverflow.com/users/855543/pointedears
LoL
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
Could Keppler
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
Could Keppler
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science
to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe Sandbox.
But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a solution for the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a very large mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller mass and is very far away from the first object; and the third object. e.g. an asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits are not actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
Which part of "please do not crosspost mindlessly"
Mild Shock amok-crossposted over 3 newsgroups:
503 Service Temporarily Unavailable
https://stackoverflow.com/users/855543/pointedears
LoL
So your point is that StackOverflow had a server problem at the time?
What does that have to do with me?
You appear to have a mental problem instead. Which part of "please do not crosspost mindlessly" did not you not understand?
F'up2 poster
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science
to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe Sandbox.
But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a solution for the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a very large mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller mass and is very far away from the first object; and the third object. e.g. an asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits are not actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
Hi,
Don't you have a newsreader where you can
see the message source. You don't need more
information than Mild Shock in the message
body, you see everything in the message
headers. For example I see in your message:
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; logging-data="2349822"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-network.org"
So you posted from INWX GmbH? Still you
give advice how to format a USENET post, even
you are not able to see the message source,
of my posts? You can easily read off who I am.
Maybe get a decend news reader before you give
advice how to post.
Fucking 5 year old imbecil, get lost in your kindergarden.
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some
newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a >> follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science >> to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so >> you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have
top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the
previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but >> not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To >> to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or
consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled
rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
have modelled a 3 planet system.
Yes, he did, but not exactly.
Can we model a 3 planet system now ?
Obviously; there are simulations of the Sol System e.g. in Universe Sandbox. >> But the 3-body-problem is not about 3 planets, but more general.
There is no *general* *exact* solution to this problem; just a solution for >> the *restricted* 3-body-problem in which one of the objects has a very large >> mass; the second object, e.g. a gas giant like Jupiter, has a smaller mass >> and is very far away from the first object; and the third object. e.g. an
asteroid, has a small that is small enough to be negligible, and is
comparably far away from the first and second object, respectively.
And this is neglecting general-relativistic corrections that lead to an
additional contribution in the precession of the perihelia (orbits are not >> actually ellipses, closed curves).
F'up2 sci.physics
you're not going well, right?
On 12/1/25 6:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:thus not something that can be "simulated"
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
Which is just a category error, as ZFC is a set of definitions, and
Also, "Turning Machines" (if you mean Turing Machines) don't have"neurons".
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability- bb748.pdf
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
"neurons".
Bye
But that "Modeling" isn't the sort of thing you "simulate".
One problem is we haven't found a way to actually "reason" with
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023 https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability-bb748.pdf
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
I am doing the wake-up call until everybody
gets ear-bleeding. It just too cringe to
see the symbolics computing morons struggle
with connectionism. But given that humans
have a brain with neurons, it should be obvious
that symbolism and connectionism are just two
sides of the same coin.
Good Luck!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
Modern accelerators rCo GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, and custom matrix
engines rCo use a different computational substrate:
Instead of Boolean logic:
raA Bulk linear algebra over vectors/tensors
Instead of instruction-by-instruction control:
raA Dataflow graphs
Instead of sequential compute on registers:
raA Massively parallel fused-multiply-add units
Instead of manually orchestrated loops:
raA High-level declarative specs (XLA, MLIR, TVM)
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy
Beaver Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the
Rado's Sigma Function) is an uncomputable problem from information
theory. The input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents
the complexity of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine.
http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
Do not underestimate turing machines. I said neurons
in the "head". But a turing machine has two parts a "head"
and a moving "tape". It can then write ZFC formulas on
a "tape". But I haven't studied the proposals yet,
but its from here:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding G||delrCOs Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023 https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability-bb748.pdf
The problem was proposed already here:
The Busy Beaver Frontier
Scott Aaronson
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
Bye
Richard Damon schrieb:
On 12/1/25 6:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
Which is just a category error, as ZFC is a set of definitions, andthus not something that can be "simulated"
Also, "Turning Machines" (if you mean Turing Machines) don't have"neurons".
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability- bb748.pdf
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
Bye
But that "Modeling" isn't the sort of thing you "simulate".
One problem is we haven't found a way to actually "reason" with"neurons".
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability-bb748.pdf
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
I am doing the wake-up call until everybody
gets ear-bleeding. It just too cringe to
see the symbolics computing morons struggle
with connectionism. But given that humans
have a brain with neurons, it should be obvious
that symbolism and connectionism are just two
sides of the same coin.
Good Luck!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean logic. >>>>
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
Modern accelerators rCo GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, and custom matrix
engines rCo use a different computational substrate:
Instead of Boolean logic:
raA Bulk linear algebra over vectors/tensors
Instead of instruction-by-instruction control:
raA Dataflow graphs
Instead of sequential compute on registers:
raA Massively parallel fused-multiply-add units
Instead of manually orchestrated loops:
raA High-level declarative specs (XLA, MLIR, TVM)
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy
Beaver Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the
Rado's Sigma Function) is an uncomputable problem from information
theory. The input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents
the complexity of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine.
http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
The head of a turing machine is usually a finite
state machine. That digests the tape reading, and
creates a new top writing or head movement.
A finite state machines complexity can be measured
in the number of states. Transitions between states
are labeled with tape reading and tap wrinting/
head movement. So the state is not what is writte
on the tape. Its an internal state. Its relatively
easy to turn a finite state machine, into an
artificial neural network. Already ChatGPT does that,
when reads tokens and writes tokens, just like
a turning machine.
"A Turing machine is a mathematical model of
computation describing an abstract machine that
manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according
to a table of rules"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
Its really funnny how people really need some
ear bleeding to understand the two sides,
symbolism and connectionsim.
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Do not underestimate turing machines. I said neurons
in the "head". But a turing machine has two parts a "head"
and a moving "tape". It can then write ZFC formulas on
a "tape". But I haven't studied the proposals yet,
but its from here:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding G||delrCOs Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability-bb748.pdf
The problem was proposed already here:
The Busy Beaver Frontier
Scott Aaronson
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
Bye
Richard Damon schrieb:
On 12/1/25 6:08 AM, Mild Shock wrote:thus not something that can be "simulated"
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
Which is just a category error, as ZFC is a set of definitions, and
"neurons".
Also, "Turning Machines" (if you mean Turing Machines) don't have
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability- bb748.pdf
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
"neurons".
Bye
But that "Modeling" isn't the sort of thing you "simulate".
One problem is we haven't found a way to actually "reason" with
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Quizz: How much neurons are necessary in the
head of turning machine, to simulate ZFC?
You have possibly to look up some modelling
of the logic of ZFC by Bernays. Don't know the
details but maybe check out:
The Undecidability of BB(748)
Understanding Godels Incompleteness Theorems
Johannes Riebel - March 2023
https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-undecidability-bb748.pdf
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
I am doing the wake-up call until everybody
gets ear-bleeding. It just too cringe to
see the symbolics computing morons struggle
with connectionism. But given that humans
have a brain with neurons, it should be obvious
that symbolism and connectionism are just two
sides of the same coin.
Good Luck!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
1) Classical computing = Boolean logic + von Neumann architecture
For decades, all mainstream computation was built on:
Boolean algebra
Logic gates
Scalar operations executed sequentially
Memory and compute as separate blocks
Even floating-point arithmetic was implemented on top of Boolean
logic.
This shaped how programmers think rCo algorithms expressed
as symbolic operations, control flow, and discrete steps.
2) AI accelerators break from that model
Modern accelerators rCo GPUs, TPUs, NPUs, and custom matrix
engines rCo use a different computational substrate:
Instead of Boolean logic:
raA Bulk linear algebra over vectors/tensors
Instead of instruction-by-instruction control:
raA Dataflow graphs
Instead of sequential compute on registers:
raA Massively parallel fused-multiply-add units
Instead of manually orchestrated loops:
raA High-level declarative specs (XLA, MLIR, TVM)
Have Fun!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Wonder why the Coq proof even should be
different from anything that AI could produce.
Its not a typical Euclid proof in a few steps,
it rather uses also enumeration, just like the
Fly Speck proof, for the Keppler Conjecture. So
lets see what happens next, could AlphaEvolve
find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
P.S.: Here picture of an old Busy Beaver ASIC
(Application-Specific Integrated Circuit)
Application-a-a-a Fun
Technology-a-a-a 1500
Manufacturer-a-a-a VLSI Tech
Type-a-a-a Semester Thesis
Package-a-a-a DIP64
Dimensions-a-a-a 3200++m x 3200++m
Gates-a-a-a 2 kGE
Voltage-a-a-a 5 V
Clock-a-a-a 20 MHz
The Busy Beaver Coprocessor has been designed to solve the Busy
Beaver Function for 5 states. This function (also known as the
Rado's Sigma Function) is an uncomputable problem from information >>>>>> theory. The input argument is a natural number 'n' that represents >>>>>> the complexity of an algorithm described as a Turing Machine.
http://asic.ethz.ch/cg/1990/Busy_Beaver.html
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Which part of "please do not crosspost mindlessly"
The part that your message header contains a crossposting:
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,comp.theory,sci.physics
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 23:23:24 +0100
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Maybe get a decend news reader before you give advice how to post.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.22
Fucking 5 year old imbecil, get lost in your kindergarden.I have been using Usenet for more than 3 decades now.
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
body, you see everything in the message headers.
[top post]
And here comes the next oneliner imbecil.
I wish the USENET was like 10 years ago,
where there were veritable cranks and trolls,
that wrote 2-3 page essays, that were interesting
and challenge to respond. Now its all autism,
and inquisitory questions. Everybody has his
brain amputated and fears making expositions.
So get lost, fuck yourself annonying moron.
On 12/2/25 11:06 AM, Mild Shock wrote:as used in Computation theory.
Hi,
Do not underestimate turing machines. I said neurons
in the "head". But a turing machine has to parts a "head"
and a moving "tape". It can then write ZFC formulas on
I think your problem is you just don't understand what computing is,
Hi,
If you know BB(N), you have a halting decision procedure
for N-turing machines. Since if BB(N) is maximum number
S(N) of steps before halting,
you can just run an arbitrary turing machine, and when
its steps exceeds S(N), you know its not a halting
turing machine.
So knowing BB(N) makes the halting problem decidable.
But the halting problem is not decidable. So there
must be some M maybe where BB(M) has no S(N) , no
maximum. Idea is to construct turing machines that
relate to consistency problems, consistency problems
can be even harder than halting problems, we might
ask for the opposite, does a program never halt.
Since never halt could be interpreted that no
inconsistency is derived. Again knowing BB(N) would
help, since dedidability via S(N) is established both
ways, saying "Yes" to halt, and saying "No" to not halt.
So we can show a reducibility from consistency
to busy beaver, I guess.
Bye
Mild Shock wrote:
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
I do. In fact, I happen to use one of the same family of newsreaders as
you, if the User-Agent header field of your messages is not forged.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
Wrong. Politeness suggests that one introduces oneself to strangers by telling them one's real name. This is Usenet, not a chat group.
body, you see everything in the message headers.
You should try that next time before you complain:
Followup-To poster *again*
[top post]
*facepalm*
Hi,
Since I am top posting, and not interleaved posting,
and hence not responding to your gibberish. What makes
you think I am interested in your gibberish?
Could you explain yourself?
Bye
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn schrieb:
Mild Shock wrote:
Don't you have a newsreader where you can see the message source.
I do.-a In fact, I happen to use one of the same family of newsreaders as
you, if the User-Agent header field of your messages is not forged.
You don't need more information than Mild Shock in the message
Wrong.-a Politeness suggests that one introduces oneself to strangers by
telling them one's real name.-a This is Usenet, not a chat group.
body, you see everything in the message headers.
You should try that next time before you complain:
Followup-To poster *again*
[top post]
*facepalm*
Hi,to construct weird ass proofs to demonstrate when BB exactly becomes "to complex" and exceeds the bounds of "decidability" ...
Maybe the local rules of a turing machine
head slow down, because energy density gets
less and less. Energy migh even stop:
"Unique to universes described by the FLRW metric,
a de Sitter universe has a Hubble Law that is not
only consistent through all space, but also through
all time (since the deceleration parameter is q
= reA 1, thus satisfying the perfect cosmological
principle that assumes isotropy and homogeneity
throughout space and time.
There are ways to cast de Sitter space with
static coordinates (see de Sitter space), so
unlike other FLRW models, de Sitter space can
be thought of as a static solution to Einstein's
equations even though the geodesics followed by
observers necessarily diverge as expected from
the expansion of physical spatial dimensions.
As a model for the universe, de Sitter's solution
was not considered viable for the observed universe
until models for inflation and dark energy were
developed. Before then, it was assumed that the
Big Bang implied only an acceptance of the weaker
cosmological principle, which holds that isotropy
and homogeneity apply spatially but not temporally." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe
Bye
olcott schrieb:
On 12/2/2025 5:42 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
Pot Head Olcott, what are you smoking?
BB(5) is only S(5)=47,176,870 steps.
What about BB(googolplex ^ googolplex) ???
Why invoke Einstein who believe in a
10rCo100 million light-years wide universe?
Can you explain?
Instead of beliefs (mind closing things)
I have sets of mutually exclusive hypothetical
possibilities. When I can make these categorically
exhaustive then certainly one of them is true.
Bye
P.S.: Turing machines that don't terminate
AND extend the tape indefinitely are of
course other wordly, relative to Einstein,
if Einstein would have assumed that the
Universe does not expand. Einstein Universe
was indeed Static, non-expanding. And
expanding universe theory was formed after
Hubble (1929). And a turing machine could
expand in lockstep with an universe, right?
olcott schrieb:
On 12/2/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 12/2/25 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/2/2025 4:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
bruh it's get even weirder when the likes of scott aaronson try
concerned with such considerations
which is just fucking absurd tbh
Busy beaver quickly consumes more memory than atoms
in the universe.
*known/observable* universe, not that fundamental math is
Einstein proposed the possibility of a finite
yet unbounded universe. That would entail a
finite number of total atoms in the universe
and a bunch of empty space.
I read his paper before I finished high school.
The Busy Beaver cannot possibly make any
difference and should be discarded on that basis.
On the other hand the nature of truth itself
could make a difference whether or not life
on Earth continues to survive.
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Your real name should be there.
[...]
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, [..]
What is the relation of this to physics in general, and the theories of relativity in particular?
If there is no relation, it does not belong there. Please do not crosspost mindlessly.
F'up2 sci.physics.relativity so that the possible reason lands in the right place.
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science
to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture' was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early 1930th?
Hi,
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early 1930th?
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planetthe fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity and
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Hi,
Well then get an education. Every G||del
sentence G, has a size, doesn't it?
The formal analogue of the Liar Paradox,
except itrCOs expressed arithmetically:
G rei reCy-4Proof(y,roiGroE).
G||del did explicitly construct a G||del
sentence G in his 1931 paper. He did not
claim it was astronomically large,
nor impossible to write. Now you can do
the encoded Liar also with Turing Machines TM:
1. Fix a formal proof system S (e.g. PA) and
an effective enumeration of all proofs.
2. Build a TM M(x) that, given a code x, searches
for an S-proof of the formula with code a; if it finds
M(x) halts <=> exists y Proof(y,x) (i.e. Prov(x)).
Etc.. etc..
Bye
dart200 schrieb:
this shit makes me feel like i'm stuck in a mad house planet
undecidability has nothing to do with computational complexity andthe fact we think the limit to decidability is bounded by how well we
can bit pack a self-referential turing machine into a proof is just
literal nonsense
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
What we thought:
Prediction 5 . It will never be proved that
+u(5) = 4,098 and S(5) = 47,176,870.
-- Allen H. Brady, 1990-a .
How it started:
To investigate AlphaEvolverCOs breadth, we applied
the system to over 50 open problems in mathematical
analysis, geometry, combinatorics and number theory.
The systemrCOs flexibility enabled us to set up most
experiments in a matter of hours. In roughly 75% of
cases, it rediscovered state-of-the-art solutions, to
the best of our knowledge.
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
How its going:
We prove that S(5) = 47, 176, 870 using the Coq proof
assistant. The Busy Beaver value S(n) is the maximum
number of steps that an n-state 2-symbol Turing machine
can perform from the all-zero tape before halting, and
S was historically introduced by Tibor Rad|| in 1962 as
one of the simplest examples of an uncomputable function.
The proof enumerates 181,385,789 Turing machines with 5
states and, for each machine, decides whether it halts or
not. Our result marks the first determination of a new
Busy Beaver value in over 40 years and the first Busy
Beaver value ever to be formally verified, attesting to the
effectiveness of massively collaborative online research
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.12337
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Bye
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 23:45 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscioushypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some
newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a >> follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science >> to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so >> you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have
top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the
previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but >> not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To >> to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or
consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled
rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
Sure.
Btw: once and many years ago I had neighbors, who had the name 'Kepler'
and were actually the grand-grand-grand-somethings of Johannes Kepler.
They were actually the main reason, why I had decided to become
interested in physics.
TH
Hi,
They claim not having used much AI. But could for
example AlphaEvolve do it somehow nevertheless, more or
less autonomously, and find the sixth busy beaver?
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
You wrote:
No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American polymath John von Neumann. He was born (as Neumann J|inos Lajos) into a non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the Empire of Austria-Hungary. His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early
1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from 1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital computers". They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of computers
as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that series that was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
On Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:22:11 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 23:45 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Mild Shock wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Please repair this.
Subject: What if of the cosmos does a BB dance? (Was: Its a subconscious >>> hypothesis)
The correct way to change the Subject is "... (was: ...)". Then some
newsreaders can automatically remove the " (was: ...)" part on composing a >>> follow-up.
What if the planets in certain galaxies
form a turning machine.
They do not.
You appear to be very confused about the applicability of computer science >>> to natural science.
Also, you should learn how to post. This was a completely new question, so >>> you should not have posted it as a follow-up. Also, you should not have >>> top-posted, i.e. you should not have appended the full quotation of the
previous postings; such is maybe appropriate in business communication, but >>> not in Usenet. It is also not appropriate to crosspost without Followup-To >>> to *one* newsgroup set.
I strongly suggest that you subscribe to news:news.announce.newusers, or >>> consult Usenet posting guidelines on the Web to educate yourself about
the communication medium that you are using here. Lest you be killfiled >>> rather quickly by people.
Could Keppler
Johannes _Kepler_
Sure.
Btw: once and many years ago I had neighbors, who had the name 'Kepler'
and were actually the grand-grand-grand-somethings of Johannes Kepler.
They were actually the main reason, why I had decided to become
interested in physics.
TH
If your neighbor was Aldoph Hitler you'd probably be posting from
Argentina right now...Dr. Heger!
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 12/1/2025 12:15 PM, Mild Shock wrote:Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'
You wrote:
-a-a> No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
-a-a> more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
polymath John von Neumann.-a He was born (as Neumann J|inos Lajos) into a
non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the
Empire of
Austria-Hungary.-a His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early
1930th?
NOT true.-a Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper
Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Computer_science>
ENIAC (completed in 1945) and EDVAC (completed in 1949, in operation from
1951 to 1962) were "programmable, electronic, general-purpose digital
computers".-a They were NOT based on or copies of the Z series of
computers
as invented and built by Konrad Zuse; the first computer of that
series that
was fully digital was the Z5, ordered in 1950 and delivered in 1953:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDVAC>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z5_(computer)>
The liberators stole it from Zuse (like zillions of other patents from
other German inventors).
'Operation paperclip' was actually a systematical manhunt by US forces
for German scientists.
Also the patens were plundered, especially those from single inventors
like Zuse.
The US tropps actually invaded eastern Germany prior to Soviet troops, because they wanted to get hold of scientists from Ohrdruf in Thuringia.
TH
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Montag000001, 01.12.2025 um 13:23 schrieb Maciej Wo+|niak:
We can use von Neumann architectureDid you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
[correction]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the early >>> 1930th?
NOT true. Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J. Presper >> Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
[conspiracy theory]
On 2025-12-04 07:50, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Mittwoch000003, 03.12.2025 um 08:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote:
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early 1930th?
NOT true.-a Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor,
EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
Yes, before the ENIAC.
And the plans for the Z3 were of course designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
[conspiracy theories/historical inaccuracies]
(I wonder whether any of above newsgroups is relevant for that topic.)
Did you know, that 'von Neuman architecture'-a-a> No, they don't, they just add one (or some)
-a-a> more layer on top of it.
Techically they are not von Neuman architecture.
Unified Memory with Multiple Tensor Cores is
not von Neuman architecture.
We can use von Neumann architecture
to emulate other architectures, but as long as it
is performed by our computers it is technically
von Neumann's.
It really is spelled _von Neumann_, named after the Hungarian-American
polymath John von Neumann.-a He was born (as Neumann J|inos Lajos) into a >>> non-observant Jewish family, and raised, in Budapest, then in the
Empire of
Austria-Hungary.-a His family name may be of German origin.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Life_and_education>
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the
early
1930th?
NOT true.-a Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper
Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
While concepts of modern computers where already exiting in Z1
the first reliably running computer system was the Z3, AFAIK.
Yes, before the ENIAC. And the plans for the Z3 were of course
designed before their initial operation in 1941, and based on
concepts also of its predecessors.
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true.-a Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
quote
"
Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und
gr|||ftenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert
worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit
der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsf|nhigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte,
als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
translated by google
"Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad
Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the
world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his architecture in 1945."
BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir
rights (or not).
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you know, that 'von [Neumann] architecture'[...]
was actually invented and patented by Konrad Zuse in Germany in the >>>>> early 1930th?
NOT true.-a Von Neumann's architecture "was based on the work of J.
Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, inventors of ENIAC and its successor, >>>> EDVAC."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuse_Z3
Didn't you know, that 1937 was much earlier than the Eniac in 1945?
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von-Neumann-Architektur
quote
"
Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur waren schon 1936 von Konrad Zuse ausgearbeitet, in zwei Patentschriften 1937 dokumentiert und
gr|||ftenteils bereits 1938 in der Z1-Maschine mechanisch realisiert
worden. 1941 baute Konrad Zuse in Zusammenarbeit mit Helmut Schreyer mit
der Zuse Z3 den ersten funktionsf|nhigen Digitalrechner der Welt. Es gilt aber als unwahrscheinlich, dass von Neumann die Arbeiten Zuses kannte,
als er 1945 seine Architektur vorstellte. "
translated by google
"Many ideas of von Neumann's architecture had already been developed by Konrad Zuse in 1936, documented in two patents in 1937, and largely implemented mechanically in the Z1 machine by 1938. In 1941, Konrad
Zuse, in collaboration with Helmut Schreyer, built the Zuse Z3, the
world's first functional digital computer. However, it is considered unlikely that von Neumann was aware of Zuse's work when he presented his architecture in 1945."
BUT: nobody gives a shit, whether or not someone knows about proir
rights (or not).
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
[...]Yes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents of Zuse
(or not).
Therefore the patents of Zuse were simply stolen and also the invention itself ascribed to somebody else
[...]
But yes, history was widely misrepresented and ignoring those!
This is an effect you can observe also in other technical areas.
But theft is still theft, even if it is for the sake of national pride.
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann architecture,
at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning of the term
is that program store and data memory reside in the same space.
Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.
Which led to Von
Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
My point was just when the first _working_ digital and programmable
computer was invented. - And in my humble opinion that was the Z3!
A bit care must be taken though with your quoted Wiki paragraph:
"Viele Ideen der Von-Neumann-Architektur [...]"
It's - at least by this statement - open what was already existing
and what property was new in von Neumann's concepts. - Here's where
the arguments may become heated; remember my statement about: "just
define the properties of the own invention, and every other (prior)
system may not match by some detail" (sort of).
The sometimes used technology reasoning is certainly not convincing
if we're speaking about the architecture principles and concepts.
[...]
It is patently irrelevant, whether von Neumann knew the patents ofYes, basically also true. - But mind that a "Deutsches Reichspatent"
Zuse (or not).
isn't valid in the USA. You need a separate application in the USA.
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture computers.
Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
von Neumann's architecture.
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in Germany.
The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle.
The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company.
[snip digressions to 'US copyright' and 'Urheberrecht']
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis
Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
I'd say, no. Neither Z1 nor Z3 are von Neumann architecture
computers.
Right. - Considering all properties, von Neumann's computers had a
von Neumann's architecture.
And it has nothing to them being either electronic or mechanical.
(This was just one common example by some to attest its innovation
and being "the first".)
The key element (==distinguishing feature) of von Neumann
architecture, at least in modern (say, of last 60-65 years) meaning
of the term is that program store and data memory reside in the
same space.
Yes. But is that crucial for a programmable computer? Is that the functionally necessary or important element? - I'd clearly say no!
Which leads to possibility of self-modifying code.
And that specifically is neither a necessity for a "[universally] programmable computer" - IMO the historic noteworthy key property! -
nor an example how systems sensibly should be (or are) programmed.
We avoid in practice exactly that property (modulo virus-developers,
maybe, and similar corner cases).
Which led to Von
Neumann's claim that index register is unnecessary for array
processing. Which is undeniable mathematical truth and serious
engineering mistake at the same time.
Yes.
An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
we commonly see...
"Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
von Neumann's architectures."
"Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
"Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
(I assume you notice the dodge.)
I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
Janis
[*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
On 2025-12-07 15:26, Michael S wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:42:40 +0100
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-07 10:22, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000004, 04.12.2025 um 09:57 schrieb Janis Papanagnou:
[...]
That's the date of the Z1, isn't it? - The Z3 came later, 1941.
Sure, but the first computer using 'von Neumann architecture' was
actually the Z1 of 1937.
Well, yes. At least mostly. That's why I've written upthread that
the concepts from the earlier Z1 were reused in Z3.
An inherent logical problem lies also in the argumentation chain
we commonly see...
"Contemporary computers are "basically" all characterized by
-avon Neumann's architectures."
"Von Neumann's computers are defined by ...property list..."
"Von Neumann was the inventor of [contemporary] computers."
(I assume you notice the dodge.)
I really don't want to engage in such discussions[*] but I think we
should at least understand the mechanics behind that. The interests
and the rhetoric/argumentation moves used to establish such agendas.
Janis
[*] We know how the inventions have been and (partly) still are
attributed, we see the various areas, and the actors' agendas and
interests, and we observe that also on various levels (countries,
competing companies, partners, plain sponges, gender status, etc.);
there's countless examples of historic mis-attributions.
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
(My point was the [non-existing] reach of a German patent in the
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
(My point was the [non-existing] reach of a German patent in the--
USA.)
The US-patent office is based upon a slightly different principle.
The main principle is that of a 'claim', which is occupied by some company.
With a granted patent in Germany you can exploit the commercial
gains yourself or with companies licensing the patents during
the first years after getting the patent.
Besides the commercial aspects the primary point of a patent can
probably be derived from the meaning of its name; Latin "patere",
to be open [for the society], to provide gain for mankind.
(Semantics in popular recognition may have changed given the
prevalence of commercial thinking worldwide.)
[snip digressions to 'US copyright' and 'Urheberrecht']
Janis
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:,'.
[...]
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the [Einstein] 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
[developing a conspiracy theory while going down the rabbit hole
they digged for themselves]
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in
Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called >'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor.
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it >requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late >1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories >related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in >possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:19:04 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in >>>>> Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called
'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor. >>
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it
requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late
1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories
related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in
possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
I lost count how many times I posted here...
that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
is what you see in the diagram here..
https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast+breeding+reactor
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.12.2025 um 19:01 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 08:19:04 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000009, 09.12.2025 um 20:43 schrieb The Starmaker:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 09:06:46 +0100, Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-12-08 08:21, Thomas Heger wrote:
An invention needs to be new. Otherwise it is not an invention.
Not only new, but also not being something considered trivial or
otherwise not "worthy" of being a patent.
At least this is the main principle upon which patents are granted in >>>>>> Germany.
In the German patent history we can observe that even marvellous
inventions have not been granted a patent because the officials
could neither understand nor see the actual or potential future
relevance and usefulness.
Albert Einstein worked at a patent office and even decided WHO gets
the patent. Albert Einstein was bribred to give the patent to the guy
who bribed him.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/WhZcPHah3Dc/m/QaT6MFBIAAAJ
Did you see the boat they gave him for it?
Albert Einstein told his friends to create FAKE patents!
(at least they got a patent on something)
https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/05/16/szilards-chain-reaction/
Only an Einstein can think of fake patents.
(he approves it himself)
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called
'Einstein's fridge'.
But that device has only one known use as part of a fast breeding reactor. >>>
And a group of students who wanted to replicate the device found out,
that it didn't cool.
So, a plausible guess would be:
the 'fridge' was actually meant to become a part of a fast breeding
reactor, but named 'fridge' to hide this fact.
But that would lead to a very unpleasant conclusion:
to patent a part of a fast breeding reactor would require the existence
of a fast breeding reactor in the first place.
And that would require the need of Plutonium, because that's the stuff
which thoese reactors 'breed'.
And as Plutonium is among the most toxic substances on the planet, it
requires good reason to want Plutonium.
That could actually be the existence of atomic bombs already in the late >>> 1920th/early 1930th in Germany. And that would suggest, that all stories >>> related to the creation of the bomb were fake, too.
That would mean, that the so called 'Manhattan project' didn't invent
the bomb, but had other objectives (like e.g. placing a 'secrecy gag'
upon theoretical physics).
Also chilling would be, that in such a scenario the Germans were in
possesion of atomic bombs already in the late 1920th.
TH
I lost count how many times I posted here...
that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
is what you see in the diagram here..
https://www.google.com/search?q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast+breeding+reactor
This is a good paper about the subject:
https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf
Quote:
"
Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors
Frank von Hippel
1
The possibility of a plutonium?fueled nuclear reactor that could produce >more fuel than it consumed (a obreeder reactoro) was first raised during >World War II in the United States by scientists in the atomic bomb program."
But this was seemingly a lie, because if the first fast breeding
reactors were invented and built in Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how >could Einstein invent and patent a part of that reactor already in 1930
in Berlin?
...
TH
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilbrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 01:58:37 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >>refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilbrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >>your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
That link ' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn' posted is a FRAUDULENT webpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
Anyone can see the fruad by looking at the picture on the right:
"Einstein's and Szilbrd's patent application"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
They inserted a fruad hand drawn calligraphy fonts that reads at the
bottom
"Einstein Refridegerator"
(patent number, date and signatures are also fraud) is all hand drawn >calligraphy fonts ans script writing.
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
You cannot trust an African BushPig with 'PointedEars'.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn is an 'off-the cuff' ' guy who
lacks ...knowledge.
I don't know how he manages to get out of bed everyday...
i bet he doesn't know how the can-opener works.
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 01:58:37 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn ><PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
[...] if the first fast breeding reactors were invented and built in
Los Alamos in WWII, then why and how could Einstein invent and patent
a part of that reactor already in 1930 in Berlin?
Very simple: He hasn't. He designed, together with Szilard, _a >>refrigerator_, in 1926. Szilbrd, not Einstein, patented it in the U.S. in 1930.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator>
You just went from a self-built slippery slope down a rabbit hole, guided by >>your paranoia. (Is your mind still sane enough for you to accept your mistake?)
That link ' Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn' posted is a FRAUDULENT webpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator
Anyone can see the fruad by looking at the picture on the right:
"Einstein's and Szilbrd's patent application"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_refrigerator#/media/File:Einstein_Refrigerator.png
They inserted a fruad hand drawn calligraphy fonts that reads at the
bottom
"Einstein Refridegerator"
(patent number, date and signatures are also fraud) is all hand drawn >calligraphy fonts ans script writing.
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.12.2025 um 19:01 schrieb The Starmaker:
I lost count how many times I posted here...
that which you call "a fast breeding reactor"
is what you see in the diagram here..
https://www.google.com/search?
q=fast+breeding+reactor.&oq=fast+breeding+reactor
This is a good paper about the subject:
https://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf
Quote:
"
The possibility of a plutoniumrCafueled nuclear reactor that could produce more fuel than it consumed (a rCLbreeder reactorrCY) was first raised during World War II in the United States by scientists in the atomic bomb
program."
But this was seemingly a lie, because if the first fast breeding
reactors were invented and built in Los Alamos in WWII,
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:45:30 -0800, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Here is the REAL Einstein patent on Google Patent Website. (that
doesn't contain the fruad)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Well done to dig up the real patent application of December 19. 1926.
So it's settled now, it is a refrigerator.
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux. >>
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Now, do yous actually believe this is a BLOUSE that Albert Einstein
filed a patent for in 1936????
https://patents.google.com/patent/USD101756?oq=USD101756-0
Of course not. Albert Einstein was tooo busy building his atomic
bombs.
He had to come up with a way to protect others from being exposed to
URANIUM RADIATION.
So he simply designed a Radiation Vest Jacket:
It's not a blouse, it's a radiation vest!
http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pages/US5274851-2.png
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5274851A/en?oq=US5274851+
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8067759?oq=radiation+vest
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20160923_EOS_0467.jpg
don't forget, he spoke german..that means the word "blouse" might have
a
different meaning..
meaning not having to do with 'women'.
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
It is a process.
You probably need an understanding also of what the word "process"
means...
define process
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular
end.
perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something)
in order to change or preserve it.
a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a
particular result
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
It is a process.
You probably need an understanding also of what the word "process"
means...
define process
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular
end.
perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something)
in order to change or preserve it.
a series of actions that produce something or that lead to a
particular result
Do you mean that an apparatus that is performing the process
REFRIDERATION must be fast breading reactor?
:-D
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters
REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 14.12.2025 19:25, skrev The Starmaker:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 14:27:17 +0100, "Paul.B.Andersen"
<relativity@paulba.no> wrote:
Den 12.12.2025 09:49, skrev The Starmaker:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
I understand English is your second language.
LOL; it's the proverbial pot calling the kettle black:
Under Einstein's name you can clearly see the Heading of the word in
Capitol letters
in _capital_ (uppercase) letters
[The Capitol is a building in Washington, D.C., the capitol (primary city)
of the U.S.A., instead.]
REFRIDERATION (meaning all caps)
No, it reads (correctly) _REFRIGERATION_.
[If would be just a typo on "The Starmaker"'s part, it would be a very
strange one: on a U.S. keyboard layout, the key for "D" is two keys away
from that for "G". So much for "English as second language".]
REFRIDERATION is a process, it is not a machine.
From this repetition of the mistake we can surmise that it was not just a >typo by "The Starmaker", but that it is due to a missing ability to read or >write properly. They might be dyslexic; but then it would be hilarious that >they would lecture others about language.
You are right!
"An apparatus for producing refrigeration"
does not produce a machine.
It _is_ a machine which is called a refrigerator.
Exactly. The patent application begins with
| Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly to an
| apparatus and method for producing refrigeration [...]
(So much for "The Starmaker"'s understanding of English.)
It is interesting to note that Einstein and Szilbrd are called "ASSIGNORS TO >ELECTROLUX SERVEL CORPORATION, of NEW YORK, N.Y., A. CORPORATION OF
DELAWARE" there already. (You mentioned that the refrigerator that was used >in your parent's home was manufactured by Electrolux and based on this design.)
Also: "Application filed December 16, 1927, Serial No. 240,566 [in the >U.S.A.], and in Germany December 16, 1926."
F'up2 sci.physics
Furthermore, if you search The Real Einstein patent on Goggle patents,
you won't find the word "refrigerator".
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/
US1781541.pdf
The very first statement in the application:
-a"Our invention relates to the art of refrigeration and particularly
-a to an apparatus and method for producing refrigeration .."
Didn't you understand that "an apparatus for producing refrigeration"
is a refrigerator?
The new invention was an absorption refrigerator with no moving parts.
At that time all refrigerators were based on the refrigerant ammonia
which is a very toxic gas which is not nice to have in your kitchen.
Albert Einstein's patent is simply a Refrideration cooling system
process to keep it from having a China Syndrome...
(The China syndrome is when a nuclear power plant's radioactive core's
cooling system fails.)
Here is what a Reactor looks like today:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148280696122699778/photo/1
and here is a cut-out out of both:
https://twitter.com/Starmaker111/status/1148279328121090048/photo/1
But, this is Albert Einstein's patent on a-a "fast breeding reactor"!
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/
US1781541.pdf
Anyone today who still thinks the patent is for cooling food has
tested Positive for Stupid.
:-D
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
Am Sonntag000014, 14.12.2025 um 14:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
The only known use of Einstein's fridge is as a part of a fast breeding reactor.
Therefore, my guess was: 'fridge' was a misnomer, to hide the real
purpose and the device was actually meant as a part of a fast breeder.
If otherwise, there is a need to show a working fridge, which is based
on Einstein's design.
But I read, that a group of students tried to replicate the 'fride' and found out, that it didn't cool.
But as patent it wouldn't make much difference, if the 'inert gas' is actually molten Natrium (or some other molten metal).
Den 15.12.2025 07:50, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Sonntag000014, 14.12.2025 um 14:27 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
Fortunately, we were so Stupid that we didn't realise that we had
a fast breading reactor in the kitchen.
The only known use of Einstein's fridge is as a part of a fast
breeding reactor.
Therefore, my guess was: 'fridge' was a misnomer, to hide the real
purpose and the device was actually meant as a part of a fast breeder.
If otherwise, there is a need to show a working fridge, which is based
on Einstein's design.
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's
and Szillard's patent?
You only think they did, because Electrolux spent money.
But actually there are all sorts of reasons thinkable, why some company would like to give somebody money and declare that as spending for patents.
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's and Szillard's patent?
The simple fact that the Electrolux fridge my parents and a lot of
other people bought in 1953 was an absorption refrigerator with
no moving parts which had the same machinery as described here:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The refrigerator is described in detail.
Why don't you read it and see for yourself? Can't you read?
No sane person can read a detailed descripion of a refrigerator
and believe that it is anything but a refrigerator.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part
needed for a fast breeding reactor???
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein'spatent and check whether or not it cools.>
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast breeding reactors.
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
Maybe we today could read the patent application and see what kindAm Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's
and Szillard's patent?
The simple fact that the Electrolux fridge my parents and a lot of
other people bought in 1953 was an absorption refrigerator with
no moving parts which had the same machinery as described here:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The refigerator is described in detail.
You only think they did, because Electrolux spent money.
But actually there are all sorts of reasons thinkable, why some company
would like to give somebody money and declare that as spending for patents.
So why do you think that Electrolux gave Einstein money?
Den 17.12.2025 08:50, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but
wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's and Szillard's patent?
The simple fact that the Electrolux fridge my parents and a lot of
other people bought in 1953 was an absorption refrigerator with
no moving parts which had the same machinery as described here:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The refrigerator is described in detail.
Why don't you read it and see for yourself? Can't you read?
No sane person can read a detailed descripion of a refrigerator
and believe that it is anything but a refrigerator.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part
needed for a fast breeding reactor???
You didn't answer my question.
The "apparatus for producing refrigeration" is described in detail
in the patent application.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
This isn't a scientific text you have to be a physicist to understand.
An engineer should be qualified to read it.
Why can't you read it an see for yourself what kind of apparatus its is?
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein'spatent and check whether or not it cools.>
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering
students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast
breeding reactors.
SIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D and ROFL
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
Can you point out where in the detailed description it
is clear that the apparatus is a part of a fast breeding reactor?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The lines in the text are numbered, so it should be easy to refer to
the relevant section.
Den 17.12.2025 08:50, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but
wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
But where is the proof, that these fridges were based upon Einstein's and Szillard's patent?
The simple fact that the Electrolux fridge my parents and a lot of
other people bought in 1953 was an absorption refrigerator with
no moving parts which had the same machinery as described here:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The refrigerator is described in detail.
Why don't you read it and see for yourself? Can't you read?
No sane person can read a detailed descripion of a refrigerator
and believe that it is anything but a refrigerator.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part
needed for a fast breeding reactor???
You didn't answer my question.
The "apparatus for producing refrigeration" is described in detail
in the patent application.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
This isn't a scientific text you have to be a physicist to understand.
An engineer should be qualified to read it.
Why can't you read it an see for yourself what kind of apparatus its is?
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein'spatent and check whether or not it cools.>
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering
students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast
breeding reactors.
SIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D and ROFL
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
Can you point out where in the detailed description it
is clear that the apparatus is a part of a fast breeding reactor?
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/53/e9/74/2cde176701fab8/US1781541.pdf
The lines in the text are numbered, so it should be easy to refer to
the relevant section
Einstein and Szillard patented a device, which is commonly called 'Einstein's fridge'.
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but >wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
THAT was actually the question.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part
needed for a fast breeding reactor????
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein's
patent and check whether or not it cools.
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering >students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast >breeding reactors.
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
TH
...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2025 08:50:10 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
Am Dienstag000016, 16.12.2025 um 22:58 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Den 16.12.2025 08:44, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000015, 15.12.2025 um 14:05 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
Do you never read the posts you are responding to?
Einstein and Szilard's patent was bought by the Swedish company
Electrolux, which built and sold a lot of absorption refrigerators.
In 1953 (when I was a kid) my parents bought
an Electrolux absorption refrigerator.
I and thousands of other people have seen working fridges
based on Einstein and Szilard's patent.
No, because this is a 'non sequitur'.
Thousands of people baught absorption fridges from Electrolux.
Sure!
But how many of them investigated, whether or not these fridges were
based upon Einstein's patent?
My guess: not a single buyer did that, because nobody cared.
Why are you stating this irrelevant obvious triviality?
This was a reply to 'my parents bougth an Electrolux refridgerator'.
I wanted to express, that buying a fridge does not prove, that this
fridge was build according to Einstein's patent.
Sure, Electrolux gave Einstein money.
But that's all we could safely assume.
Possibly Electrolux was involved in building fast breeding reactors, but >>wanted to keep that secret.
But how could we today possibly know????
So, we have a few facts:
Einstein and Szillard patented a fridge
Electrolux gave them (a lot of) money
Electrolux sold tons of fridges
... some of which were based on on Einstein and Szillard's patent.
THAT was actually the question.
Iow: was that patented device actually an absorption fridge or a part >>needed for a fast breeding reactor????
We could check that by building a 'fridge' according to Einstein's
patent and check whether or not it cools.
But we actually don't need to do that, because a group of engineering >>students did that already and found out, that Einstein's 'fridge' did
NOT cool.
Instead it is common knowledge, that Einstein's 'fridge' is used in fast >>breeding reactors.
The endresult:
two points for fast breeding reactor
zero points for 'fridge'.
TH
...
"common knowledge"??? that is lacking with these people...
"Never used in refrigerators, their pump was later adapted for the >circulation of coolants in the controversial fast-breeder nuclear
reactoruoan irony that would not have been lost on either Einstein or >Szilard.o (Bernard Feld, Einstein and Nuclear Weapons, Holton and
Elkana, p. 391.)"
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:03:08 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,733 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
