1° IT Theorem: Backend developer touches one line of css -> frontend fuck up forever

Had a panic attack during a coding assignment and now every time I think about that problem I just start spacing. Noice.

Also dear companies: if you wanna ask your interviewees about trying to deduce a theorem out of nowhere, maybe do it in the first test and not in the last one. Cause that’s a shot in the dark to someone who’s not a mathematician and id feel waaay less frustrated if I didn’t give you 6 hours of my life just to end up with an arbitrary task like this.

As I was browsing pornhub, I started reading articles about AI, dick still in hand, and went down the rabbit-hole (no pun intended) of self referential systems and proofs. This is something I do frequently (getting off track, not beating off, though I have been slacking recently).

Now I'm no expert but my neurotic DID personality which prompted this small reading binge DOES think it is an expert. And it got me thinking.

Godel’s second incompleteness theorem says that "no sufficiently strong proof system can prove its own consistency."

Then utilizing proof by contradiction, systems that are "sufficiently strong" should produce truth outputs that are monotonic. E.g. statements such as "this sentence is a lie."

Wouldn't monotonicity then be proof (soft or otherwise) that a proof system is 'sufficiently strong' in the sense that Godel's second theorem meant?

Edit: I WELCOME input, even if this post is utterly ignorant and vapid. I really don't know shit about formal systems or logic. Welcome any insight or feedback that could enlighten me.

This formula from Gödel's incompleteness theorem. It basically says there is no hope to ever know if your program is correct ... 😁

Just finished up some math homework

One of the problems involved finding the side lengths of a triangle

Spend a good 20 minutes fucking around with the law of sines and the law of cosines before I realized it was a right triangle, and so I could use the Pythagorean theorem

I'm an idiot

Theorem 2.71 All software is shit.

Corollary 3.14 So stop the braindead OS wars. All OS are shit, too.

Proof. The only software that can stay beautiful and clean is software that is never used. Maybe if you are Dijkstra or live in a Haskellian world, you might come away with it, but for the rest of us our artifacts have to interact with other artifacts or are build upon strange historically grown systems, they have to deal with users who will put it to creative use.. and in the process we also actually might have to alter some state.
Or put another way: code is a social construct. Like science are the beliefs and superstitions grown by a scientific community, software is the montainous dunghill produced by our laborious efforts to make shit even work. Of course this only piles the stack higher and higher until you can already smell it from the moon.

The Pythagorean theorem is pretty important. You should be able to represent it graphically because it shows that you are a thinking creature to the point of math.

Works also if you have no other common basis for communication, not even mimics. That might well save you from a live autopsy in case you get abducted by aliens because it would make them curious.

Chinese remainder theorem

So the idea is that a partial or zero knowledge proof is used for not just encryption but also for a sort of distributed ledger or proof-of-membership, in addition to being used to add new members where additional layers of distributive proofs are at it, so that rollbacks can be performed on a network to remove members or revoke content.

Data is NOT automatically distributed throughout a network, rather sharing is the equivalent of replicating and syncing data to your instance.
Therefore if you don't like something on a network or think it's a liability (hate speech for the left, violent content for the right for example), the degree to which it is not shared is the degree to which it is censored.

By automatically not showing images posted by people you're subscribed to or following, infiltrators or state level actors who post things like calls to terrorism or csam to open platforms in order to justify shutting down platforms they don't control, are cut off at the knees. Their may also be a case for tools built on AI that automatically determine if something like a thumbnail should be censored or give the user an NSFW warning before clicking a link that may appear innocuous but is actually malicious.

Server nodes may be virtual in that they are merely a graph of people connected in a group by each person in the group having a piece of a shared key.
Because Chinese remainder theorem only requires a subset of all the info in the original key it also Acts as a voting mechanism to decide whether a piece of content is allowed to be synced to an entire group or remain permanently.

Data that hasn't been verified yet may go into a case for a given cluster of users who are mutually subscribed or following in a small world graph, but at the same time it doesn't get shared out of that subgraph in may expire if enough users don't hit a like button or a retain button or a share or "verify" button.

The algorithm here then is no algorithm at all but merely the natural association process between people and their likes and dislikes directly affecting the outcome of what they see via that process of association to begin with.

We can even go so far as to dog food content that's already been synced to a graph into evolutions of the existing key such that the retention of new generations of key, dependent on the previous key, also act as a store of the data that's been synced to the members of the node.

Therefore remember that continually post content that doesn't get verified slowly falls out of the node such that eventually their content becomes merely temporary in the cases or index of the node members, driving index and node subgraph membership in an organic and natural process based purely on affiliation and identification.

Here I've sort of butchered the idea of the Chinese remainder theorem in shoehorned it into the idea of zero knowledge proofs but you can see where I'm going with this if you squint at the idea mentally and look at it at just the right angle.

The big idea was to remove the influence of centralized algorithms to begin with, and implement mechanisms such that third-party organizations that exist to discredit or shut down small platforms are hindered by the design of the platform itself.

I think if you look over the ideas here you'll see that's what the general design thrust achieves or could achieve if implemented into a platform.

The addition of indexes in a node or "server" or "room" (being a set of users mutually subscribed to a particular tag or topic or each other), where the index is an index of text audio videos and other media including user posts that are available on the given node, in the index being titled but blind links (no pictures/media, or media verified as safe through an automatic tool) would also be useful.

On science and religion. Inspied by a comment in another rant, credits to @Commodore and @cjbatz

According to Godel's incompletness theorems, aritmetics is incomplete and inconsistent. Therefore, any science based on aritmetics (dude, like, every) is also.
Therfore, as a mathematician, I must accept that there are things that cannot be proven by current science, and that there are statements that are true and false at the same time in current science.

So, science can't prove religious beliefs? It cant prove P vs NP either. It might someday. Science couldn't prove earth wasn't flat for a looong time. Or Pythagoras theorem.
But more importantly, if science can prove something, doesn't mean it can't prove the exact oposite.

This way of thinking allows for any and all ridiculous beliefs, under the shield of "it might be proven one day" or "doent't mean opposite isn't true also" but kerp in mind that there are complete and consistent sciences and proofs in them. Check if something's been proven to exist or not exist without doubt.