# Inducing Percussions in all of Mathematics

Today, my favorite gift was to receive an announcement of the First International Conference on Mathematics is Inconsistent, devoted to professor Kamouna’s Bi-polarism theory. The theory proves that SAT is not NP-complete, and that the Continuum Hypothesis and the Axiom of Choice are false. It also reconciles General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Merry Christmas!

[Update 12/27: a commenter points out this article in the popular press.]

## 90 thoughts on “Inducing Percussions in all of Mathematics”

1. I love this line: “It is obvious that these results (if they were true) are of importance to a broad audience…”. I guess you can’t argue with that!

2. I’m indeed grateful to Luca and both comments anonymous & JK.

The “Fuzzy Logic” Movie

Choice a la Matt Monroe

“Choice” was ours,
A rose within flowers; (ZF are the flowers, C is the rose)

“Suddenly, we can SEE,

ZFC, eeee

Inconsistency,

All of a sudden,

“Choice” was yours and mine,

All of a sudden,

Use “Choice”, it’s fine,

Now, every moment, there are songs to sing,

Use “Choice” with everything!

“””””””Susan Haack”””””””

A Central Cultural Figure of “Bi-Polarism Theory” for Decades.

Aristote: Susan Haack will get angry at this.

Platon: Susan Haack has nothing to do with this.

Aristote: Pavelka did this.

Platon: This doesn’t imply that Kamouna may do this.

Aristote: Novak et al. did this.

Platon: Still, this doesn’t imply that Kamouna may do this.

Aristote: Blasphemy!!!

Un peu gêné, bien sûr il faut le dire

Dans le passé, vous m’avez fait souffrir

Je ne suis plus la fille qui s’efface

Que l’on rejette dans l’ombre d’une impasse

C’est vrai je suis une philosophe

N’importe quelle apostrophe

Et on me crie “bravo” mais pour moi

Le plus beau, c’est devinir fou

Avec la logique flou

On se retrouve aujourd’hui face a face

Et cependant pas a la même place

On se revoit après bien des annees

Depuis le temps, vous n’avez pas changé

On se retrouve aujourd’hui face a face

On oublie tout et le passé s’efface

Tout ce bonheur que vous m’aviez volé

A l’instant meme, on peut le partager

Alors venez, venez que l’on s’embrasse

Ne restez pas assis a votre place

Ce soir c’est vous qui etes la vedette

On se retrouve aujourd’hui c’est la fete

Je ne suis plus la fille qui s’efface

Que l’on rejette dans l’ombre d’une impasse

La science ne sera jamais une impasse

(Courtesy of Linda de Suza)

===============================

Aristote/Platon; Again!

Aristote: Boss, this Ф would solve all our disputes.

Platon: Ф? What is this?

Aristote: Phi, Boss.

Platon: I know kid, what does it mean?

Aristote: “The Empty Set”, we shall construct everything from it, Boss.

Platon: Renés Descartes would get angry at this, kid.

Aristote: Why Boss? You must mean he would question: “Does it exist?”

Platon: Andy Williams solved this; don’t re-invent the wheel, kid.

Aristote: Yes, Boss;

Zadeh: “With her first hello, she gave a meaning to this [EMPTY] world of mine,

There’d never been another love another time,

She came into my life and made the living FINE”

================== ITALIANO ==============

Charles Aznavour
MORIR D’AMORE

Sento sfuggir dalle mie dita
Ogni appiglio della vita
E so’ gia’ quel che aspetta me:
Morir d’amore.
Visto che il mondo mi accusa
Ogni altra via resta chiusa
Non saprai quando me ne andro':
Morir d’amore.

Morir d’amore, il mio unico giorno con te
Pagarlo al prezzo piu’ alto che c’e’
Ma chi mi capira’ non mi condannera’.
La gente e’ piena di problemi
Piccole idee, soliti schemi
Entro cui non entrero':
Morir d’amore.

Per amare te fino in fondo
Possa dire basta al mondo,
E sara’ logico per me
Morir d’amore.
Ormai sui miei pensieri e’ scesa
La rabbia triste della resa
Ma non so’ rinunciare a te:
Morir d’amore.

Morir d’amore,
Andar via senza tanti perche’
Dove posso portare con me
Solo cio’ che eravamo noi due
Che eri tu…
Non ci sara’ un altro incontro
Tu eri l’alba ed io il tramonto
Me ne andro’ rimpiangendo te:
Morir d’amore
Morir d’amore

===============================

The STOC 2009 paper is even more horrible.

Gratefully Yours,

Rafee Kamouna.

3. All papers are here:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+Kamouna/0/1/0/all/0/1

except for the STOC 2009 which includes a different proof of “SAT is (NOT) NP-complete” as well as the same counter-example argument to the entire branch of Descriptive Complexity:”Fagin’s Theorem” and “Immermann-Vardi Theorem”.

I recently thanked the guys at topcoder for their interest since the first day the paper went on the ArXiv.org

19th June, 2008:

15th December:

========== Extract from the recent link =========

“Bi-Polarism Theory” current status
I shall sketch to you their decisions:

1. FSS (6 submissions in 2008 only):
Decision:”FSS is not adapted to publish papers about the P vs. NP problem”.

2. JACM (1 paper submitted):
A Turing machine cannot diagonalize against itself. The author should attempt to write code for such machine to see the impossiblity of this task.

Reply: Letter to the editor of JAMS, which was sent to JACM editor.

Appeal to:
1. Associate Editor.
2. Editor-in-Chief.
3. Chair of the Publications Board.

Appeal Outcome:
“Editors are at no obligation to debate with authors; seek another venue for publication”.

The JACM paper was submitted to on 18th June, 2008. Now, the same paper is still under review by JAMS since 27th July, 2008.

EATCS: Theoretical Computer Science Journal

After 6 papers submitted: Scope Problem (Fuzzy Logic)

“FSS would give you better explicit feedback than TCS + difficult to find reviewers from the TCS community”.

FSS:

Abondoning the P vs. NP question with the FSS journal, the paper “Two Fuzzy Logic Programming Paradoxes” is currently “under review” by the aforementioned journal.

This paper proves:

1. The Continuum Hypothesis = “False”.
2. The Axiom of Choice = “False”.

The current status of the paper is “Under Review”. It was submitted to FSS on 16th July, 2008. Obviously, these results (if true) are more important than any P vs. NP new result; however major.

There was a recent discussion with Grand Prof Petr Hajek (the major renowned contributor) of “Mathematical Fuzzy Logic”.

I shall take his permission to include our entire discussion here (which was in CC with FSS editors) – providing (hopefully) that you would respect ALL of them.

I shall do this soon after the holidays, and I shall include the link for this thread.

=======================

I add the Quantum Gravity paper was rejected by “Foundations of Physics”. I shall take their permission to publish it.

The ZFC inconsistency results were not presented with the physics paper.

4. Dear Rafee Kamouna,

The article at http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2008062910436 seems also very interesting.

Kinda reminds me of Dr El Naschie case, no offense.

Can we clarify a few things beforehand. From which university did you receive your Phd from and who was your supervisor ? Your Phd focused on what field in particular ? How many papers have you actually published in peer-reviewed journals ?

thanks.

5. My Ph.D. is from De Montfort University, UK.

The (Supervisor-less) thesis entitled:”Fuzzy Logic Programming Based on Alpha-Cuts” lies at the University libarary without any written report from any of the university members.

My supervisors resigned (from supervision) few months before submission.

It would be UNFAIR to De Montfort University to handle a research project that started a decade before the University even exists.

The Ph.D. thesis “External Examiner” was Grand Prof Didier Dubois who is my scientific contact for the French degree of:”Habilitation a Diriger des Recherches” – Universite Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier.

The current work was in connection with obtaining L’Habilitation.

Feel free to contact him, if that’s your approach to evaluate my work. The Ph.D. thesis report & other information is available by contacting me with email or phone: 00-962-795 38 1964.

All the colleagues never disagree about that apart from Lotfi Zadeh, there is no as respected as Grand Didier Dubois. This must be true for Grand Henri Prade as well.

And concerning Fuzzy Logic Programming, also Prof Lluis Godo, the international expert in the Foundations of Fuzzy Logic, the major contributor for “Mathematical Fuzzy Logic” and “Possibilistic Logic Programming”. He is the FSS area editor who reviewed more than 10 submissions ow my work.

NONE of them made any sort of ENDORSEMENT to “Bi-Polarism Theory”

The last is currently being “Two Fuzzy Logic Programming Paradoxes” which proves:

1. Continuum Hypothesis=”False”.
2. Axiom of Choice=”False”.

A different technique to achieve the same results is reviwed by JAMS.

You should have analyzed its data:

1. It’s more than 6 months old.
2. It mentions a paper submitted to JACM.

An author submitting to
JACM – 1 paper.
JAMS – 1 paper.
EATCS TCS – 6 papers.
EATCS ICALP 2009: Full Bi-Polarism Theory Workshop Proposal.
STOC 2009: 1 paper.

FSS – 13 papers.
1 paper published by the FSS Founding Editor Professor Emiertus Zimmermann – my only orphan publication.

10 rejected papers – 6 in 2008 only.

1 is currently under review.

So, no single paper was accepted by the Dubois-Prade-Godo academic empire, nor the relatively new Prof Bernard DeBaet-Grand Dubois-Grand Godo, as yet.

I’m taking permission of all of the above journals to publish their Decision Letters together with the rejected papers.

Unlike all other journals, FSS provides extensive explicit feedback reports as lengthy as the papers.

=====================

Do you, or anyone else think that this approach is PROFESSIONAL, or????

All these different are (most respected) journals/conferences in the relevant disciplines.

Do I have (personal) or whatever connections with them?

Instead of linking me to another person based on a non-specialized newspaper article, you should analyzed its data:

1. JACM article.
2. The JACM decision is sketched in front of you.
3. JACM Appeal twice, decision is upwards.

Obviously, Lance Fortnow is invited to the conference before anyone. He was so kind to review the paper. To believe that this is not a compliment by any means, have a look at this:

http://www.hutter1.net/private/fun.htm

See how I am cited here.

I wished instead of that you had a glance on the paper(s) which is just one-step argument.

6. kgb comment (definitely) links JACM to Al-Nashie.

Are they equivalent?

Are you willing for a scientific discussion?

7. With such claims, publication is of minor importance.

Publication only implies that the scientific group of the Journal supports the results.

In such claims, what is important is the larger scientific community.

Since for more than one year, nobody was able to invalidate a (one-step) argument, the decision was to do directly for the Conference and invite the entire scientific community.

Now, several scientific groups (all above) was unable to invalidate this (one-step) arguments – proofs are only for illustration.

Let’s see how long will this process take.

Always remember, tha match is never over.

This is Bi-Polar 2009-I

followed by Bi-Polar 2009-II

Bi-Polar 2009-III

upto $\omega$

then

$\epsilon_0$

I saw the wisdom of some of the finest theorist

1. running away from the discussion.
2. refusing to publish their wisdom in Bi-Polar 2009-I proceedings!!!!!!!

My Inbox is surprising. However, Andy Williams solved it:

“How long does it last?

Can science be measured by people’s status???

We shall keep inviting them over & over, you will see the results.

SySBPD=SpTBPD

Syntactico-Sematical Bi-Polar Disorder = Spatio-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

How long will take

8. I have no problem to be GRILLED by experts here.

All the papers are on the ArXiv.org except for the STOC 2009 papers – available on request.

All previously rejected papers with journals decision letters are available on request.

This is to follow the entire line of argumentation amongst everybody.

I’m here to:

1. summarize.
2. sketch.
3. clarify.

anything relevent to any claim. Fair Enough!!!

I’m currently in Jordan flying to Barcelona after holidays to meet Prof Lluis Godo who invited me many times – in order to facilitate disucssions, followed by Toulouse.

In such a matter, the decision is for the community and not for any group.

I appreciate the contribution of Luca and all others.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

9. Cough cough ….. Correct me if I am wrong here.

You have only published one, single sole paper ?
Would you happen to have any highly acclaimed co-authors ?

Your Phd thesis was never defended before any committee ?? *cough* *cough* What kind of institution bestows such degrees in such a “reputable” and “diligent” way.

I don’t mean to offend you, but is that some kind of practical joke? Claiming that you have submitted work to well-known journal, does this mean that we can take your work serious ? I mean, I could ask my 8 year old kid to summarize a topic in complexity theory and then have it submit to the journal of “BlahBlahBlah”
*Grin* please do think about how you approach things here and how you argue.

Finally, it is kinda not fair to be using Prof Trevisan’s blog and waste his space on these kind of fruitless arguments. Then you mention Lance Fortnow, cough … has he reviewed your paper ? what was his comment on it ?

“Publication only implies that the scientific group of the Journal supports the results.”
isnt quite right. Publication implies far more than a simple “endorsement” . The fact that anything got published in a peer-reviewed journal shows that someone spent time looking at the result and inspecting it.

10. You said:

Cough cough ….. Correct me if I am wrong here.

You have only published one, single sole paper ?
Would you happen to have any highly acclaimed co-authors ?

No any co-author.

Is this an objective question?

Is it necessary for validity fo any paper? from a scientific point-of-view, or even popular point-of-view.

When papers are submitted to journals; do they check such questions???

You said:

Your Phd thesis was never defended before any committee ?? *cough* *cough* What kind of institution bestows such degrees in such a “reputable” and “diligent” way.

I really don’t know the process by which you understand.

The Chair of the committee in front of which I defended my Ph.D. thesis is mentioned above: Prof Didier Dubois.

I mentioned clearly that he was my External Examiner; what does that mean to you????

All british universities are government institutions; awards are the responsiblity of the British Westminister Parliament. Watch BBC please.

Am I talking to Luca of UC Berkeley?, correct me if I am wrong.

What does “External Examiner” mean in UC Berkeley; NO DEFENCE?

Supervisors (whether resigned or not) never sit on a Ph.D. committee in the UK system.

I told you Prof Didier Dubois External Examiner report is available on request?

What does this mean in Berkeley? NO DEFENCE???!!!!

I’m curious please. Does it imply so to Zadeh’s Berkeley, Kapr’s Berekely. Sorry about that, as it seems there lots of mental instances of UC Berkeley.

You Said:

I don’t mean to offend you, but is that some kind of practical joke? Claiming that you have submitted work to well-known journal, does this mean that we can take your work serious ? I mean, I could ask my 8 year old kid to summarize a topic in complexity theory and then have it submit to the journal of “BlahBlahBlah”
*Grin* please do think about how you approach things here and how you argue.

I thought you were serious. Good it was a joke.

So take this joke:

Young(Trevisan,0.7).

?- Young(Trevisan,0.7).

Run this Prolog program.

It will give you the answer “Yes”=”1″=”True” and “0.7” at the same time.

This single fact is simultaneously two-valued logic and many-valued logic.

This is the 1st FLP paradox.

This program is in P and can never be reduced to SAT.

Try to reduce it.

Tell me how. I’m very stupid at this, Sir.

Thus, either:

1. SAT is (NOT) NP-complete; or

2. L is in P iff L is not in P.

Do you see it?

Or you want more clarifications?

It is easy to see:

“The set of all valid FLP formulas are countable iff it is uncountable”

Hence, CH=”False”

Since, there are uncountable number of such languages,

Hence, Choice=”False”.

I can elaborate as much as you wish.

It’s only 10 minutes job. If you add Quantum Gravity maybe 15 minutes.

The rest will be answering questions!!!

It is a joke iff it is not a joke.
===============================================
You said:

Finally, it is kinda not fair to be using Prof Trevisan’s blog and waste his space on these kind of fruitless arguments. Then you mention Lance Fortnow, cough … has he reviewed your paper ? what was his comment on it ?

I mentioned in detail, his decision and the Appeal twice.

Is it legal to put (copy/paste) the decisions here and discuss it. If so, I shall do this immediately.

You said:

“Publication only implies that the scientific group of the Journal supports the results.”
isnt quite right. Publication implies far more than a simple “endorsement” . The fact that anything got published in a peer-reviewed journal shows that someone spent time looking at the result and inspecting it.

You tell me this if I’m avoiding publication altogether.

In 2008 alone, I submitted 13 submissions to the all respected above.

What is the problem of conducting a Conference(s) concurrently???

I’m not inviting people for a joke.

The announcement for an International Conference to indicate how I’m serious.

=======================================

Believe me Sir,

“Bi-Polarism Theory” TCS/Mathematics/Physics is a 15-minute job.

It is easier for me than the simplest high school problem.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

11. Rafee ,

for being so enthusiastic about it and trying so hard, heads up!

I hope u succeed in convincing the scientific community but don’t tire them out by being too pedantic.

i myself only spotted a few mistakes, i wonder what lance said and what prof luca trevisan thinks. maybe you should forward ur proof to prof papdimitriou and prof sipser.

I once submitted a 15-page to the FSS journal, I received a book of around 80 pages of requisite feedback.

You can be in the EXPLICIT FSS camp,

or just say:

in the other Rubber Stamper camps.

I’m willing to send all papers to Prof Papdimitriou & Prof Sipser – if they are willing to review.

Thanks a lot.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

13. yes my comments would amount to approximately 110 pages. and no, i don’t believe any prof would be willing to review additional papers.

but if they do show up to your conference maybe then you could persuade them of your arguments.

unfortunately, i have no intention to be explicit in any form since i have other obligations.

i wish you well in your endeavor.

14. As should be clear, I have no connection to the comments signed “lucanonymous.” Also, I shall delete further comments on prof. Kamouna’s qualifications, which is not the interesting discussion to have.

Luca T.

15. Dear Prof Luca Trevisan,

Thanks a lot.

The nickname was confusing.

Best,

Rafee Kamouna.

16. I would like to express my deep thanks for Prof Luca Trevisan for opening this thread as well as the Theory of Computing Aggregate Blogger.

I hope we would have useful discussions.

R.K.

17. December 24, 2008 at 7:35 am

anonymous

If you enjoyed that email, you might enjoy this even more: http://forums.topcoder.com/tc?module=Thread&threadID=629562&start=0&mc=128. The conference host has been vigorously defending himself on a forum for competitive programming. Apparently he submitted at least one of his “results” to JACM.

===============================================

Dear anonymous,

The topcoders guys opened a thread the first day the rejected JACM paper went on the ArXiv (19th June, 2008), I felt I should announce the conference in their site responding to their kind attention.

Yes, some results have been submitted to JACM. Details of Prof Lance Fortnow comments and reviewer ‘s together with the appeal will be included in the following posts.

R.K.

18. December 25, 2008 at 9:04 am
JK
I love this line: “It is obvious that these results (if they were true) are of importance to a broad audience…”. I guess you can’t argue with that!

=================================================

Dear JK,

I guess this would be a good starting point to argue about this, that, these and those.

At least it’s not me who mentioned the beautiful word “argue”!

R.K.

19. This sentence is false.

The above sentence is the Liar’s paradox.

For centuries:
Those who discussed it were excluded heretics.

Kurt Godel:

For him, he rewrote it:”This sentence is uprovable”.

For him, it made him GREAT. A young guy pointed to by fingers when seen by all his elders.

Below is a sentence, which I see as a paradox:

Young(John,0.7)

This sentence is written in FOL. It is a wff of FOL. I guess you can’t argue with that!

1. For millennia, logic was studied only from a philosophical point-of-view.

2. For more than a century, logic is being studied from a mathematical point-of-view.

3. For decades, logic is being studied from a programming point-of-view.

Before those decades, you wouldn’t be able to run the following Universal Prolog program:

Single-Fact-Single-Goal Program:

Young(John,0.7).

?- Young(John,0.7).

Dear TCS Guys,
The Super-Ultra-Intellectuals of the 21st Century,
Who developed a beautiful quantum computation theory for machines that don’t exist.

I ran the above program,

A Universal Prolog program,

The answer is “Yes” = “True” = “1”,

Now, what about the string “0.7”,

FOL says it is a constant,

Now, what happens if you assume that this constant is a truth constant?

I don’t mind if you forbid this assumption,

Just considering this assumption,

One second of thought, you conclude: A PARADOX.

One fact: two truth values,

1. Semantic truth value: “1”.
2. Syntactic truth value: “0.7”.

You are allowed to give the constant “0.7” the meaning you wish,

The meaning happens only in your mind – it’s a free zone, Guys, it’s under your own control. Nobody may interfere here.

Is anybody – in this discussion – willing to consider this assumption, leading to a programming paradox?

The implications are not shocking, Guys,

Just,

Only,

the (dancing) logical view of programming, and the programming view of logic has to dance a little bit more.

R.K.

20. The (dancing) rhythm here is Syntactico-Semantical, Guys,

The inter-play between both sides:

We have Two sides,

Bi-Polar Syntactico-Semantical,

Mozart wouldn’t get angry at this,

Not because he had a Bi-Polar Disorder, (the Psychiatry guys write it bipolar disorder).

He wouldn’t because he is famous for playing music mentally, writing entire symphonies on paper (Syntax), hand it on to the orchestra.

Less gifted composers were syntactic, they need an instrument as an aid.

R.K.

21. If you just agree about the assumption that “0.7” is a truth constant,

Examine the above Prolog program against the Turing machine.

Alan Turing wouldn’t get angry at this.

According to Stephen Cook: “Turing was not interested in the efficiency of his machines”

We are not trying to make Turing angry here by discussing anything not interesting to him.

“He was interested whether his machines could simulate arbitrary algorithms”, according to Steve Cook.

Can a Turing machine model the above program?!?!

22. Would Turing get angry at this question?!?!

1. “Yes”, Turing would get angry.

2. “No”, Turing wouldn’t get angry.

and Why?

R.K.

23. Rafee,

i find your monologue discussions so incredibly entertaining. please continue. it’s a pleasure and great joy to read them (even though most of them don’t make sense).

24. Dear monologue,

Thanks a lot.

If they don’t make any sense, I would put the blame on myself,

and myself alone,

that’s my habit,

dozens of rejected papers over decades, with each one I put the blame on myself, and myself alone,

Can you be EXPLICIT like the

FSS journal:”A book of requisite feedback for a paper”,

I can’t promise you they always do this, but often enough,

It happened to me I submitted to FSS 15 pages paper,

I received an 80-page book of EXPLICIT requisite feedback (hard copy before the Internet era).

If you (curiously) asky why, and how, I shall tell you how:

The submitted paper was entitled:”Fuzzy Logic Programming Founded on a New Notion of Pseudo-Complementarity”, submitted 1998-1999, submitted to the FSS Dubois-Prade-Godo academic empire.

The paper used the results published in “Fuzzy Logic Programming”, accepted for publication by the FSS Founding Editor Professor Emeritus Zimmermann.

The book consists of the following:

Area Editor Prof Lluis Godo:

Reviewer 1
1. Report 1 on the published paper.
2. Report 2 on the submitted paper.
3. Cross examination.

Reviewer 2:
1. Report 1 on the published paper.
2. Report 2 on the submitted paper.
3. Cross examination.

Editors-in-Chief:
The conclusion in a summary page, in a wonderful sentence summarizing more than a decade of my research – 1999-2000.

25. Dear monologue,

If you want to be credible, you should try to be EXPLICIT when you say that my work doesn’t make sense.

I know you will say you don’t have time.

No problem, there is no harm if the number of “Rubber Stampers” increases by one.

“Few mistakes”,

“Misunderstandings”,

Best,

R.K.

Major errors,

26. Dear monologue,

“Your monologue discussions make NO sense iff they make ALL sense”,

Your comment reminded me of my proof of the “Continuum Hypothesis = False”, which starts by the statement:

“p is fuzzy iff it is not fuzzy”

I guess Lance ignored the CH claim which is more significant that the “P vs. NP” claim,

I suppose he did that by applying Occam’s razor, it’s fair,

Nevertheless,

I’m PROUD to have an FSS decision letter (to be published soon) and a paper entitled:”ZFC is Inconsistent”, submitted March, 2008.

The letter told me:”This page looks like a poem rather than a scientific paper,

etc.

etc.

then

“To be frank, we are puzzled with your submissions…”

The BEAUTIFUL letter for a single-page paper was proudly signed by the editors-in-chief: Bernard DeBaets & Grand Didier Dubois.

Best,

R.K.

27. Dear monologue,

Commentators on my work are two categories (no third):

EXPLICITERS vs. Rubber Stampers,

This duality is another “Bi-Polar Disorder”

You are the nicest of them!

Best,

R.K.

28. Arnold Toynbee:

For him:

History is a pattern of one force challenging another, thus:

“Good/Evil Bi-Polar Disorder”

Best,

R.K.

29. Arnold Toynbee Decision Problem

Let any human being X be a Turing machine M on input w where w is the measure of “HATE”; output: “Good” or “Evil”,

Now, is M decidable?

Obviously, “Yes”; because X must die,

Turing wasn’t interested in the efficiency of his machines during 1936.

This guy was in England and not aware of Hitler’s book:”Mein Kampf”,

Probably Hitler was the most efficient computation M decided with output evil.

Obviously, Hitler is the least element in P.

Steve Cook wouldn’t get angry at this,

For him, a computation M on input w sounds like music,

Best,

R.K.

30. Dear monologue,

Now the question is there a POSITIVE FEEDBACK loop on Turing machine M on input w, that would double the amount of input hate to this strange planet.

Informally, when someone whose decision problem halts in the state q_hate dies at location X, is there another one at location Y born with input w of the same/different hate?

Historians:

For them,

World War II is a function of World War I,

Is this function recursive?

What was happening in Japan may justify linking history and geography to discover this:

POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP of input HATE to this planet.

or equivalently:

NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP of input LOVE to this planet; maybe there is no input,

You TCS guys,

Best,

R.K.

31. If the above is not interesting, the below is absolutely SERIOUS:

Expliciters welcome,

Impliciters as well!

Best,

R.K.

32. Dear Professor Kamouna,

We reaffirm our previous decision.

Please understand that it is the responsibility of Editors
to judge the suitability of a manuscript for publication
in a particular journal. In cases where a manuscript is
suitable except for a few specific deficiencies, Editors
may choose to work with authors to improve the manuscript.
In cases where there are very severe deficiencies a
manuscript may be rejected without a detailed litany of
its problems. Unfortunately, your manuscript fell into
the latter case. Editors are under no obligation to
debate the fine points of your research with you.

We suggest that you seek another venue for publishing

Ronald Boisvert and Holly Rushmeier
ACM Publications Board

33. Quoting “Rafee Ebrahim” :

> Christmas Gift: Axiom of Choice = “False”
> fortnow@eecs.northwestern.edu,pragh@yahoo-inc.com, boisvert@acm.org; president@acm.org; michaelm@eecs.Harvard.edu,chesnais@acm.org; holly@acm.org; ozsu@acm.org, thejacm@yahoo.com;halpern@cs.cornell.edu, ian@unt.edu, shaack@law.miami.edu, s.haack@miami.edu
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Ron Boisvert
> The Chair of the Publications Board,
> The Association for Computing Machinery,
>
> Dear Prof Ron Boisvert,
> First of all I would like to thank Prof Lance Fortnow for considering the JACM paper for peer review, while editors of other journals didn’t.
>
> In reply to your decision that my submission numbered JACM-00052-2008 “was properly handled according to ACM policy”, this policy seems to have (completely) ignored the more significant result of that paper with no positive/negative review whatsoever. Assuming that every word the reviewer wrote is absolutely correct, still no feedback was given on the proof that the Continuum Hypothesis=”False”. Hence, ZFC is Inconsistent, rendering P vs. NP redundant as well as many mathematical problems. The proof that the Axiom of Choice=”False” was left as an exercise for the reader. This latter result is explicitly stated in the STOC 2009 # 104 recent submission. So,
>
> In Summary:
> The result that “ZFC is Inconsistent (CH=False)” was never examined. Will it be examined, or not? In both submissions: JACM-00052-2008 vs. STOC 2009 #104?
> Since you made reference to ACM policy, can you explain to me what this policy in this typical situation is? – forgetting about any appeal at the moment.
>
> Please find below a serious discussion (in connection with a Fuzzy Sets & Systems paper on the ArXiv.org) proving that the “Axiom of Choice” is “False” to Gottlob Frege of Fuzzy Logic, the author of”Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic, 1998″, the Begriffsschriftof Fuzzy Logic Dear Prof Petr Hajek, RNDr., DrSc.
> It is easy to see:
> R(Classical Logic,”Begriffsschrift”)
> =
> R(Fuzzy Logic, “Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic”)
>
> I’m waiting for your decision on JACM-00052-2008, submitted on 18th June, 2008 so that I can prepare easily for Bi-Polar 2009 for which you (and all dear colleagues at the ACM) will receive an official invitation soon. A draft of the Call for Papers for Bi-Polar 2009 is below.
>
> Instead of withdrawing the JACM paper, it was easy to formulate a totally independent proof of “SAT is (NOT) NP-complete” as well as over-turning fundamental results in Descriptive Complexity Theory in the STOC 2009 paper.
>
> Merry Christmas & Happy New Year,
> I hope to hear from you as soon as possible.
> 2008=Two Thousand Great; let’s have 2009 greater,
>
> Yours Sincerely,
> Prof Rafee Kamouna,
> Department of Computer Science,
> Faculty of Science & Information Technology,
> Irbid National University,
> Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
> Tel: 00-962-79….
>
>
>

34. >
> === Gottlob Frege of Fuzzy Logic = Prof Petr Hajek, RNDr., DrSc.==
> Fax: (+420 ) 28658 5789
> Attn: Prof Petr Hajek, RNDr., DrSc.
> With deep gratitude.
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Rafee.
>
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
> From: Rafee Ebrahim
> To: hajek@cs.cas.cz
> Cc: cintula@cs.cas.cz; dubois@irit.fr; prade@irit.fr; godo@iiia.csic.es; ian@unt.edu; rafee102000@yahoo.com
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 3:25:07 PM
> Subject: Computational Axiom of Choice

> Dear Prof Hajek,
> Thanks a lot for your reply. Feel free to be open and even (vehement).
>
> =========================================
> You are certainly in complete agreement with me that: “There is a paradox iff one has truth constant arguments”. Let me clarify the following:
>
> 1. Your results are in “Philosophy.Logic”, while mine are in “Philosophy.Logic.Mathematics.Computer Science.Physics” – see “The Abstract Secret: Resolving the Aristotleo-Platonic Disputes Implies Resolving All Solvabales”, citation FSS paper, Jan 2008.

> 2. My results are on physical computers, i.e. Boolean machines. In other words, I use the universal Prolog programming language not a proposed logic system of my own.

> 3. If you forebid me to have truth constants as p(t_1,t_2,…\mu), it’s up to you. But Prolog doesn’t. Prolog allows constants. In the paper FSS paper “Fuzzy Logic Programming” – written 1997, those constants are interperted as truth values. You don’t have to do that nor forbid others from doing so, either. That’s unfair, isn’t it? This is the beatuy of the “Fuzzy Logic Enterprise” – i.e. volcanoes of possibilities. As you have built your own systems. At least let others use Universal Prolog.

> 4. See below a message of yours regarding a query for attacking the P vs. NP (now disposed) problem using semantics of logic programming. Before this message, you used to refer me to Prof Vojtas. So, please invite him to engange in the discussion in such a serious matter. Not to mention Dear Teresa Alsinet as well as Dear Colleagues in Malaga.

> 5. Please give other errors, I shall give you for each error a secret.

> 6. Your first secret is that a Computational equivalence of the Axiom of Choice has been established. This is their “Empty String” when they define a computation M on an input string w, they have to exclude it as you do when you exclude the empty set in the Choice function. You write X, but you write a huge big slash in such an angry way as if you know that there is something going wrong here. Is this (angry) slash available in LaTeX as I’m new into this business? Is it due to the Maestro David Hilbert as he is not leaving us alone here in the Frederic Francois Chopin Institute for Mathematics. He is still after his problems in one way or another. The Bottom Line those guys need an empty string: Please find it in your keyboard!

> 7. Another secret I give to you is Cantor’s Diagonal Argument is a result in Philosophy.Physics and NOT as misunderstood in Philosophy.Mathematics. Here the Chopin guys get absolutely angry at this, do you know why?

> 8. Because if you do this, both Plato & Aristotle would get angry at you; if only one of them gets angry, then there is no problem. When I tell you Aristotle would get angry at this, clearly means it doesn’t follow logically. When I tell you Plato would get angry at this means you are inconsistent with his doctrine which is purifying your heart, soul, mental and psyche to get inspiration, illumination or “Devoilement, Contemplation”. I’m not embezzling anybody here. This is what Henri Poincare used to call “Flash”.

> 9. As you might know the Chopin guys do Aristotelianism absolutely in English and absolutely Platonism in French for not to mix the intutional flow of thought with that of reason. Like your guys don’t mix model theory with proof theory.

> 10. So, as in (1) above your argument is in “Philosophy.Logic”, while mine is in “Philosophy.Logic.Mathematics.Computer Science.Physics”, those guys if you argue with them like this, they will argue against you like this:

> 1. You mix Philosophy.Logic with Philosophy.xxx.Physics, so this means:
> You mix Philosophy.X with Philosphy.Y
> Implies you mix Philosophy.Music with Philosophy.Physics
>
> So, your line of argumentation is equivalent to:

> (1) Philosophy.Music: Chopin & Liszt, both of them confirm that Mozart is better than Beethoven.

> (2) Philosophy.Physics: Implies Paris is the Capital of England.
> ================================================
> So, you didn’t even cover what Farabius solved!!!
>
> Give me other errors, I shall give you more secrets.
>
> Don’t tell anybody, keep it between you and me.
>
> Those guys, if they get a paradox, they don’t cry or have hard feelings at all, they just sing:
>
> “Choice” was ours but her eyes didn’t show it,
> Suddenly we can SEE
> ZFC
> Inconsistency
> All of a Sudden, Choice was yours and mine,
> All of a sudden, use Choice that’s fine,
>
> But don’t think that “her eyes” was Zermelo’s Olga
>
>
> Do you want a sketch of a Paraconsistent Set Theory that may survive inevitable Paradoxes?
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Rafee.
>

35. >
> ===========================================
> I do not work on this subject and cannot tell.H.
>
> On 9 May 2006 at 0:21, Rafee Ebrahim wrote:
>
>> Dear Prof Hajek,
>>
>> Is there a fallacy here??
> \$gt;
>> Rafee.
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>
>> Due to the logical reformulation of the P vs. NP question [1], one
>> has:
>>
>> the question “is P a proper subset of NP” can be reformulated as “is
>> existential second-order logic able to describe languages that
>> first-order logic with least fixed point cannot?”
>>
>> But First-order logic with least fixed point can compute any
>> Turing-computable function [2].
>>
>> So, First-order logic (with least fixed point) can compute languages
>> described by existential second-order logic, hence, P = NP!
>>
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_classes_P_and_NP
>> [2] Foundations of Logic Programming, John Lloyd, Springer-Verlag,
>> 1987.
>>
>> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
>> countries) for 2c/min or less.
>
> Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
> Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences ,
> Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague , Czech Republic
> phone (+… , fax (+4202) 86585789
> http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek
>
>

36. >
> Dear colleague,
> I have got your fax, which is a copy of an e-mail sent yesterday. I
> techician has found it is spams and saved it for me. I quickly answer
> to you and please allow me to be fully open. From what you write I see
> that you are completely wrong and do not understand well what
> classical predicate logic and fuzzy predicate logic (say the Basic
> fuzzy logic BL\forall and related logics) is. Both logics have the
> same predicates, object constants and variables, the fuzzy logic has
> more connectives and if you allow truth constants the fuzzy logic has
> more constants, possibly uncountably many (Pavelka logic). The logics
> differ in their notion of interpretation: classical logic has
> {0,1}-valued interpretations, whereas the fuzzy logic (i its standard
> semantics) has [0,1]-interpretations ([0,1] being the real unit
> interval). Truth constants are formulas, they cannot be arguments of
> an atomic formula (first error of you). If you have an atomic formula
> say p(x) then in each classical model for each evaluation of the
> variable x the formula has the value 0 or 1; whereas in fuzzy logic it
> can have any value from [0,1]. No paradox: different logics, different
> semantics. (Second error of you). The set of formulas of classical
> logic is countable (asssuming that the set of predicates is countable)
> and so is the set of truth-constant-free formulas of fuzzy logic; the
> set of formulas of fuzzy logic with truth constants for all elements
> of [0,1] is of course uncountable. Again no paradox,everything
> absolutely clear, no “paradoxical cardinal” (third error of you). And
> so on. I see that you submitted your paper to Fuzzy sets and systems;
> my strong recommendation to you is to take the paper back and not to
> Sorry for being so open; please believe me that my only wish is to
>
> Sincerely yours Petr Hajek.
>

37. >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:”hajek@cs.cas.cz”
> To: Rafee Ebrahim
> Cc: cintula@cs.cas.cz; dubois@irit.fr; godo@iiia.csic.es; ian@unt.edu
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:27:49 AM
> Subject: Re: CH & Choice
>
> (sending once more)
>
> Dear colleague,
> I have got your fax, which is a copy of an e-mail sent yesterday. I
> techician has found it is spams and saved it for me. I quickly answer
> to you and please allow me to be fully open. From what you write I see
> that you are completely wrong and do not understand well what
> classical predicate logic and fuzzy predicate logic (say the Basic
> fuzzy logic BL\forall and related logics) is. Both logics have the
> same predicates, object constants and variables, the fuzzy logic has
> more connectives and if you allow truth constants the fuzzy logic has
> more constants, possibly uncountably many (Pavelka logic). The logics
> differ in their notion of interpretation: classical logic has
> {0,1}-valued interpretations, whereas the fuzzy logic (i its standard
> semantics) has [0,1]-interpretations ([0,1] being the real unit
> interval). Truth constants are formulas, they cannot be arguments of
> an atomic formula (first error of you). If you have an atomic formula
> say p(x) then in each classical model for each evaluation of the
> variable x the formula has the value 0 or 1; whereas in fuzzy logic it
> can have any value from [0,1]. No paradox: different logics, different
> semantics. (Second error of you). The set of formulas of classical
> logic is countable (asssuming that the set of predicates is countable)
> and so is the set of truth-constant-free formulas of fuzzy logic; the
> set of formulas of fuzzy logic with truth constants for all elements
> of [0,1] is of course uncountable. Again no paradox,everything
> absolutely clear, no “paradoxical cardinal” (third error of you). And
> so on. I see that you submitted your paper to Fuzzy sets and systems;
> my strong recommendation to you is to take the paper back and not to
> Sorry for being so open; please believe me that my only wish is to
>
> Sincerely yours Petr Hajek.
>
>
> ————————————————–
> On 26 Nov 2008 at 9:43, Rafee Ebrahim wrote:
>
> Postovní prog.: YahooMailRC/1155.32 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
> Datum odeslání: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:43:30 -0800 (PST) Od: Rafee
> Ebrahim Vec: *****SPAM***** CH & Choice
> Komu: hajek@cs.cas.czKopie pro: cintula@cs.cas.cz, dubois@irit.fr,
> godo@iiia.csic.es, ian@unt.edu,
> rafee102000@yahoo.com
>

38. >
> Dear Prof Hajek,
>
> Thanks a lot for your message.
>
> You send me this (2007) invitation letter, but I wasn’t able to make
> it and I apologized.
>
> It was regarding your emendation of Godel’s Ontological Argument. A
> new visit from Prof Lluis Godo is attached.
>
> I do not overturn Godel’s proof at all.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2543
>
> This paper entitled:”Two Fuzzy Logic Programming Paradoxes”
> demonstrates two FLP paradoxes. Below is the letter I recently
> received from the Journal Manager.
>
> The line of arugmentation goes as follows:
>
> If one has a classical atomic formula with a truth constant as:
>
> p(t_1,t_2,…,\mu)
>
> Then:
> This logic is (simultaneously) two-valued and infinitely many-valued.
>
> Since this formula is a classical one, any interpretation I would
> assign a clasical truth value in {0,1} while at the same time another
> (infinitely-many-valued) in [0,1].
>
> All the values in ]0,1[ are inconsistent with those in {0,1}.
>
>
> Now, consider the set of all valid formulas of FLP. What is its
> cardinality? 1. Aleph_0.
>
> Yes, but if the countability condition on the [0,1] is lifted, then a
> paradoxical bijection between N and R is possible:
>
>
> FLP-two-valued:
> 1. The set of all FLP valid formulas can be put into a one-to-one
> correspondance with the set of all natural numbers and even decidable.
>
>
> FLP-uncountable-truth-constants:
> 2. The set of all FLP valid formulas can be put into a one-to-one
> correspondance with the set of allreal numbers.
>
> This refutes diagonalization which is impossible.
>
> Implies: there exists a (paradoxical) transfinite cardinal which is
> countable iff it is uncountable.
>
> Next Question: Is this cardinal unique?
>
> Answer: It is easy to see if “Sigma” is the FLP alphabet, the set of
> all FLP languages L\subseteq Sigma* is uncountable.
>
> (Sigma* is the set of all finite strings on Sigma)
>
> Then you associate with each L such a paradoxical cardinal.
>
> Implies: There is an uncountable number of those paradoxical
> cardinals. Each one is countable iff it is uncountable – Bi-Polar
> Disorder.
>
> Implies: Choice=”False”, as it is equivalent to the well-ordering
> theorem.
>
>
> Feel free to ask me whatever questions you wish.
>
> I’m stuck alone here (Middle East) with no one to present to him just
> a onestep argument. I wrote to hundreds of people all over the world
> to visit them in any city, any country immediately; self-affiliated.
> None replied.
>
> As I was advised that the P vs. NP results are outside the Fuzzy Logic
> scope, so I should approach the TCS community. However, it is obvious
> that these results are much more serious than any P vs. NP
> (major/remarkable/celebrated) new result – and definitely within the
> scope of your work/area of expertise.
>
> It turns out that the P vs. NP results (experimently) confirms that
> SAT is (NOT) NP-complete; hence ZFC is inconsistent.
>
> It is easy to see which ZFC axiom causing this trouble, yet – other
> than Choice.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rafee.
>
>

39. >
> ============ Letter from the Journal Manager ======
> RE: FSS-D-08-00555
> FSS (ELS)
>
> Friday, November 14, 2008 1:14:44 PM To:Rafee Ebrahim
> rafee102000@yahoo.com
>
> Dear Rafee,
>
>
> I have checked the status of your paper and indeed it is still ` with
> Editor´. The reason is that the Area Editor first wants to have a
> (good) look himself and informed me that he needs (some) time for
> that.
>
> I thank you for your patience.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Edward
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Rafee.
>
> —– Forwarded Message —-
> From: “hajek@cs.cas.cz”
> To: rafee102000@yahoo.com
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 11:30:59 AM
> Subject: Invitation
>
> Attached, Petr Hajek.
>
> Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
> Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
> Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
> phone (+4202) … , fax (+4202) 86585789
> http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek
>
>
>
>
> Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
> Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
> Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
> phone (+4202) … , fax (+4202) 86585789
> http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek
>
> Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
> Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
> Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
> phone (+4202) … , fax (+4202) 86585789
> http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek
>
>
> Dear Rafee,
>
> I have checked the status of your paper and indeed it is still ‘ with Editor’. The reason is that the Area Editor first wants to have a (good) look himself and informed me that he needs (some) time for that.
>
> I thank you for your patience.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Edward
>
> From:Rafee Ebrahim [mailto:rafee102000@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 11 November 2008 10:10
> To: FSS (ELS)
> Cc: rafee102000@yahoo.com
> Subject: Re: FSS-D-08-00555
>
> Edward Bibo
> Journal Manager
> Fuzzy Sets and Systems
> Dear Mr. Bibo,
>
> The above paper was submitted on 16th July and is not yet under review; any problem?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Rafee.
>
>
> Sunday, August 3, 2008 4:49:11 PM
>
> Editor agrees to handle FSS-D-08-00555
>
> FSS fss@elsevier.com
>
> To:rafee102000@yahoo.com
>
> Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-00555
> Fuzzy Sets and Systems
>
> Dear Dr. Rafee Ebrahim,
>
> Area Editor Lluís Godo has agreed to take on this assignment.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Lluís Godo
> Area Editor
> Fuzzy Sets and Systems
>
>
> ====== End of Discussion with Prof Petr Hajek, RNDr., DrSc. ====
>

40. ======= The Chair of the Publications Board =================
> Re: P vs. NP – Appeal to the Chair – JACM-00052-2008
> Ron Boisvert
> To:rafee102000@yahoo.com
> Cc:boisvert@acm.org; president@acm.org; chesnais@acm.org; holly@acm.org; ozsu@acm.org
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> We are responding to your appeal of the decision of the Editor-in-Chief of JACM
> on your manuscript numbered JACM-2008-00052.
>
> The ACM Publications Board delegates complete responsibility for the technical
> content of its journals to the Editors-in-Chief, who have been carefully selected
> by the Board for their relevant technical expertise. In cases when authors feel
> that their manuscript has been inappropriately handled, we review the administrative
> process used to evaluate the submission. In reviewing the process in this case we
> find that the submission was properly handled according to ACM policy. Hence, we
> stand by the decision of the Editor-in-Chief.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Ronald Boisvert and Holly Rushmeier
> Co-Chairs, ACM Publications Board
>
> Rafee Ebrahim wrote:
>>
>> Ronald F Boisvert
>>
>> Chair of the Publications Board,
>>
>> The Association for Computing Machinery,
>>
>> boisvert acm.org
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>>
>> While the Editor-in-Chief of any journal should explain to the author why he is wrong, the attached appeal to the EiC of JACM received no objective explanation to me.
>>
>>
>> This appeal is presented to you on the grounds of:
>>
>> 1. Administrative Violation: While the reviewer is an expert in
>> Complexity Theory, it is obvious that he has no basic
>> understanding of “Fuzzy Logic Programming with Truth Constants”.
>> 2. When JACM reviews a paper whose main theorem is about “P vs. NP”
>> using Algebraic Topology or Algebraic Geometry; What type of
>> reviewer is required for this paper?
>> 3. This Administrative Violation led to the fact that the reviewer
>> asked me to write code while it is in front of him!!!
>>
>>
>> I’m bringing this case to your attention in the hope of having a fair objective review of my paper.
>>
>>
>> Yours Sincerely,
>>
>> Dr. Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna.
>>
>>
>>
>> Letter to the Editor-in-Chief of JACM.
>>
>>
>> Please find below my appeal against the Associate Editor: Prof Lance Fortnow decision regarding the rejection of my submission:
>>
>>
>>
>> JACM JACM-00052-2008
>>
>> “A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is (NOT) NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist and ZFC is Inconsistent”
>>
>>
>>
>> I would like to start by enclosing the Reviewers comments as exactly sent to me:
>>
>>
>>
>> This paper just shows a major lack of understanding of computability theory, complexity theory and logic. It’s hard to point to a specific mistake since major details are missing, but one cannot design a Turing machine that diagonalizes against itself which the author claims, without any proof, that he can do on page 4. I suggest the author actually try to write the code for such a Turing machine which might help him understand the impossibility of that task.
>>
>>
>>
>> When a reviewer asks an author to write code – while the code is in the paper, this reviewer was absolutely UNFAIR to himself and to the associate editor and to the journal that asked for his services.
>>
>>
>> The reviewer’s comments end by suggesting that the author should write the code for such a Turing machine, something that has been done by the author as early as 1997 and even before that. Examples are included together with two versions of a meta-interpreter, referring to [192] written before 1997. Did the reviewer /review/ those examples and systems? I assume: “Yes, he did”. However, he asks me to write code. Why? Obviously, he does not believe this code proves what he sees as impossible.
>>
>>
>> The reviewer asked for writing code while it was written in front of him.
>>
>>
>> The reviewer denied the FLP paradox. The reviewer ignores the fact that this example is paradoxical against any ground goal:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Any Prolog system will respond with either:”1″ or “0”, this is contradiction with the truth value:”0.9″.
>>
>>
>> JACM will not be able to eliminate this paradox nor its implications.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>>
>> Let me try to explain to you why SAT is not NP-complete:
>>
>>
>>
>> For the above single-fact-single-goal program L, there are only two possibilities that have no third:
>>
>>
>> 1. L has an associated Turing machine M, or:
>>
>>
>> 2. L does not have one.
>>
>>
>> Case (1): L has an associated Turing machine M
>>
>>
>> a) SAT Decision Problem:
>>
>>
>> The SAT decision relation is R(F,x), assigning a truth value x for a Boolean formula F.
>>
>>
>> i) Input: Boolean Formula.
>>
>>
>> ii) Output: “1” or “0”.
>>
>>
>> b) L in FLP Decision Problem:
>>
>>
>> The FLP decision relation is R(F,x,y), assigning two distinct truth values, x (AND) y for an FLP formula F. One truth value is syntactic “0.9” written above in the program. The other is semantic. Any basic knowledge of logic is sufficient to view both contradictory truth values.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Input: FLP Formula.
>>
>>
>> 2. Output:
>>
>> a) “1”, FLP semantical truth-value; AND (not or):
>>
>>
>> b) “0.9”, syntactical truth-value.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Those two values are not only irreconcilable, but also irreducible into a (single) truth value.
>>
>>
>> Now, the problem is how to write the reduction function f to reduce L to SAT:
>>
>> L >
>>
>> This is the program (function) that Prof Lance Fortnow should attempt to write.
>>
>>
>> This is a counter-example argument that can be refuted by experiment. If the reader gets angry at this, neither Einstein nor Popper (i.e. “Testability”) would. Who finds himself angry should present the reduction function f reducing L to SAT as a refutation to this counter-example. Obviously, this counter-example is just a member of the SySBPD class of infinite number of languages having the same property.
>>
>>
>> Case (2): L does not have an associated Turing machine, but L is computable on the von Neumann machine. Then, this is a counter-example for the Church-Turing thesis. The situation becomes:
>>
>> *L in P iff L is not in P*
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. L in P, as it is a one-step computation.
>>
>>
>> 2. L not in P, the class P is defined only on Turing machines.
>>
>>
>> The reviewer’s claim that L does not have an associated Turing machine should be proved (physically) by building the machine and demonstrating its incapacity compared to the von Neumann machine, i.e. L is not Turing-computable. The skeptic should make a public demonstration of a Turing machine that he claims to be capable of computing everything in history except the above example. In other words, Prolog is (NOT) programmable on Turing machines. Obviously, the above program can be written in all Prolog versions. Thus, he has to prove (experimentally) that PROgramming in LOGic is impossible. A mathematical proof that a Turing machine cannot compute the above program is irrelevant to the physical phenomenon of computation. It would be certainly interesting for everybody to see this machine in public.
>>
>>
>> Final Result: Something is wrong somewhere!
>>
>>
>> If the reviewers cannot see the FLP paradox in the paper, they should have employed somebody who has contributed to the area of “Fuzzy Logic Programming with Truth Constants”, that’s why a lengthy bibliography was included.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, at the moment JACM review is of much lower level than an amateur discussion such as:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Dr. Rafee Kamouna.
>>

41. >
======== JACM Editor-in-Chief ===================
>
> Thank you for your note. Based on the evidence of the reviewer’s credentials and the details of the review, I stand by the rejection. This decision is final.
> Please note that our stated policy on P/NP submissions now applies to any submissions on P/NP and related questions that are co-authored by you: http://jacm.acm.org/PNP.html
> Sincerely,
>
> p.r.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:Rafee Ebrahim [mailto:rafee102000@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 5:36 AM
> To: Prabhakar Raghavan
> Cc: president@acm.org; chesnais@acm.org; boisvert@acm.org; holly@acm.org; ozsu@acm.org; thejacm@yahoo.com; rafee102000@yahoo.com
> Subject: P vs. NP paper, JACM-00052-2008
>
> Prabhakar Raghavan
> Editor-in-Chief:
> The Journal of the ACM,
> pragh@yahoo-inc.com
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Please find below my appeal against the Associate Editor: Prof Lance Fortnow decision regarding the rejection of my submission:
>
>
> JACM JACM-00052-2008
> “A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is (NOT) NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist and ZFC is Inconsistent”
>
>
> I would like to start by enclosing the Reviewers comments as exactly sent to me:
>
>
> This paper just shows a major lack of understanding of computability theory, complexity theoryand logic. It’s hard to point to a specific mistake since major details are missing, but one cannot design a Turing machinethat diagonalizes against itself which the author claims, without any proof, that he can do on page 4. I suggest the author actually try to write the code for such a Turing machine which might help him understand the impossibility of that task.
>
>
> When a reviewer asks an author to write code – while the code is in the paper, this reviewer was absolutely UNFAIR to himself and to the associate editor and to the journal that asked for his services.
>
> The reviewer’s comments end by suggesting that the author should write the code for such a Turing machine, something that has been done by the author as early as 1997 and even before that. Examples are included together with two versions of a meta-interpreter, referring to [192] written before 1997. Did the reviewer review those examples and systems? I assume: “Yes, he did”. However, he asks me to write code. Why? Obviously, he does not believe this code proves what he sees as impossible.
>
> The reviewer asked for writing code while it was written in front of him.
>
> The reviewer denied the FLP paradox. The reviewer ignores the fact that this example is paradoxical against any ground goal:
>
>
> Any Prolog system will respond with either:”1″ or “0”, this is contradiction with the truth value:”0.9″.
>
> JACM will not be able to eliminate this paradox nor its implications.
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Let me try to explain to you why SAT is not NP-complete:
>
>
> For the above single-fact-single-goal program L, there are only two possibilities that have no third:
>
> 1. L has an associated Turing machine M, or:
>
> 2. L does not have one.
>
> Case (1): L has an associated Turing machine M
>
> a) SAT Decision Problem:
>
> The SAT decision relation is R(F,x), assigning a truth value x for a Boolean formula F.
>
> i) Input: Boolean Formula.
>
> ii) Output: “1” or “0”.
>
> b) L in FLP Decision Problem:
>
> The FLP decision relation is R(F,x,y), assigning two distinct truth values, x (AND) y for an FLP formula F. One truth value is syntactic “0.9” written above in the program. The other is semantic. Any basic knowledge of logic is sufficient to view both contradictory truth values.
>
>
> 1. Input: FLP Formula.
>
> 2. Output:
> a) “1”, FLP semantical truth-value; AND (not or):
>
> b) “0.9”, syntactical truth-value.
>
>
>
> Those two values are not only irreconcilable, but also irreducible into a (single) truth value.
>
> Now, the problem is how to write the reduction function f to reduce L to SAT:
> L
> This is the program (function) that Prof Lance Fortnow should attempt to write.
>
> This is a counter-example argument that can be refuted by experiment. If the reader gets angry at this, neither Einstein nor Popper (i.e. “Testability”) would. Who finds himself angry should present the reduction function f reducing L to SAT as a refutation to this counter-example. Obviously, this counter-example is just a member of the SySBPD class of infinite number of languages having the same property.
>
> Case (2): L does not have an associated Turing machine, but L is computable on the von Neumann machine. Then, this is a counter-example for the Church-Turing thesis. The situation becomes:
> L in P iff L is not in P
>
>
> 1. L in P, as it is a one-step computation.
>
> 2. L not in P, the class P is defined only on Turing machines.
>
> The reviewer’s claim that L does not have an associated Turing machine should be proved (physically) by building the machine and demonstrating its incapacity compared to the von Neumann machine, i.e. L is not Turing-computable. The skeptic should make a public demonstration of a Turing machine that he claims to be capable of computing everything in history except the above example. In other words, Prolog is (NOT) programmable on Turing machines. Obviously, the above program can be written in all Prolog versions. Thus, he has to prove (experimentally) that PROgramming in LOGic is impossible. A mathematical proof that a Turing machine cannot compute the above program is irrelevant to the physical phenomenon of computation. It would be certainly interesting for everybody to see this machine in public.
>
> Final Result: Something is wrong somewhere!
>
> If the reviewers cannot see the FLP paradox in the paper, they should have employed somebody who has contributed to the area of “Fuzzy Logic Programming with Truth Constants”, that’s why a lengthy bibliography was included.
>
> Unfortunately, at the moment JACM review is of much lower level than an amateur discussion such as:
>
>
>
> Have a look at this link to see how JACM was unfair to itself in this decision.
>
> Please inform me if you are going to re-consider this decision employing reviwers who have contribution to the area of the method (FLP-truth-constants) used to attack the problem or not.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Dr. Rafee Kamouna.
>
>
>

42. Recent email from dear colleague Gottlob Frege:

Dear Mr. Ebrahim,
I strongly DISAGREE with you saying that there is a paradox if one has truth
values arguments, as I tried to explain you in my previous email.
I think that further discussion has not much sense. Yours respectfully Petr Hajek.

On 28 Nov 2008 at 5:25, Rafee Ebrahim wrote:

> Dear Prof Hajek,
>
> Thanks a lot for your reply. Feel free to be open and even (vehement).
=========================================
>
> You are certainly in complete agreement with me that: “There is a
> paradox iff one has truth constant arguments”. Let me clarify the
> following:
>
>

Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
phone (+4202) 6605 3760 , fax (+4202) 86585789
http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek

43. My recent reply to Gottlob Frege a la Fuzzy:

Dear Prof Petr Hajek,

Thanks a lot for your message. I hope that this discussion will go on.

Your previous e-mail mentioned the “first error” of me is:

“Truth constants are formulas; they cannot be arguments of an atomic formula (FIRST ERROR OF YOU)”.

That’s what exactly you wrote to me.

So, having truth constants is an error, or is not an error?

And, if it is an error, why?

Yes, or No?

Those questions are posed in order to see “Where” and “How” you DISAGREE with me.

Form what you have written, it seems you believe it as an error and not a paradox; how?

Best regards,

Rafee.

——————————————————————————–
From: “hajek@cs.cas.cz”
To: Rafee Ebrahim
Cc: cintula@cs.cas.cz; dubois@irit.fr; prade@irit.fr; godo@iiia.csic.es; ian@unt.edu; rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:24:38 PM
Subject: Re: Computational Axiom of Choice

Dear Mr. Ebrahim,
I strongly DISAGREE with you saying that there is a paradox if one has truth
values arguments, as I tried to explain you in my previous email.
I think that further discussion has not much sense. Yours respectfully Petr Hajek.

On 28 Nov 2008 at 5:25, Rafee Ebrahim wrote:

> Dear Prof Hajek,
>
> Thanks a lot for your reply. Feel free to be open and even (vehement).
=========================================
>
> You are certainly in complete agreement with me that: “There is a
> paradox iff one has truth constant arguments”. Let me clarify the
> following:
>
>

Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
phone (+… , fax (+4202) 86585789
http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek

44. Re: Computational Axiom of Choice Rafee Ebrahim AddWednesday, December 10, 2008 4:26:22 PMTo:hajek@cs.cas.cz
Cc:cintula@cs.cas.cz; dubois@irit.fr; prade@irit.fr; godo@iiia.csic.es; ian@unt.edu; halpern@cs.cornell.edu; rafee102000@yahoo.com

Dear Prof Petr Hajek,

Thanks a lot for your message. I hope that this discussion will go on.

Your previous e-mail mentioned the “first error” of me is:

“Truth constants are formulas; they cannot be arguments of an atomic formula (FIRST ERROR OF YOU)”.

That’s what exactly you wrote to me.

So, having truth constants is an error, or is not an error?

And, if it is an error, why?

Yes, or No?

Those questions are posed in order to see “Where” and “How” you DISAGREE with me.

Form what you have written, it seems you believe it as an error and not a paradox; how?

Best regards,

Rafee.

——————————————————————————–
From: “hajek@cs.cas.cz”
To: Rafee Ebrahim
Cc: cintula@cs.cas.cz; dubois@irit.fr; prade@irit.fr; godo@iiia.csic.es; ian@unt.edu; rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:24:38 PM
Subject: Re: Computational Axiom of Choice

Dear Mr. Ebrahim,
I strongly DISAGREE with you saying that there is a paradox if one has truth
values arguments, as I tried to explain you in my previous email.
I think that further discussion has not much sense. Yours respectfully Petr Hajek.

On 28 Nov 2008 at 5:25, Rafee Ebrahim wrote:

> Dear Prof Hajek,
>
> Thanks a lot for your reply. Feel free to be open and even (vehement).
=========================================
>
> You are certainly in complete agreement with me that: “There is a
> paradox iff one has truth constant arguments”. Let me clarify the
> following:
>
>

Professor Petr Hajek, DrSc
Institute of Computer Science, Academy of Sciences,
Pod vodarenskou vezi 2, 182 07 Prague, Czech Republic
phone (+… , fax (+4202) 86585789
http://www.cs.cas.cz/~hajek

45. My reply was on 10 Dec, perhaps I haven’t received any reply because of the holidays.

Expliciters are welcome,

Impliciters stereotyping are nice as those guys who provoked the

Bi-Polar 2009-I planned event.

TCS guys,

Best, Best, Best,…etc.,… upto epsilon_0!!!

Rafee Kamouna.

46. Date: Jan 31 2008 2:22:16:897PM
To: “Rafee Ebrahim” rafee102000@yahoo.com
cc: fss@irit.fr;Bernard.DeBaets@UGent.be
From: “FSS” fss@elsevier.com
Subject: FSS-D-08-0058
Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-0058
A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder Theory of Computation Founded on FLP-Alpha-Cuts: P vs. NP does not exist!
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Dear Dr. Ebrahim,

This letter is to let you know that your paper entitled

A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder Theory of Computation Founded on FLP-Alpha-Cuts: P vs. NP does not exist!

submitted to Fuzzy Sets and Systems has received a preliminary examination. Based upon the Area Editor’s advice, the Editors-in-Chief regret to let you know that your paper cannot be sent out to referees. The reason is as follows: the work is premature. Too much ground is claimed to be covered within too small length. Most claims made are either hardly understandable or not clearly proved.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
This note makes a grand claim, namely that the question whether P = NP holds or not is a vacuous question, because the sets of problems referred to as P and NP are subject to Russel’s paradox whereby being a member is equivalent to not being a member.

This note clearly misses the point because it is too short, hard to read, and relies on topics that are not clearly related to the issue under concern.

Many expressions are unclear. For instance what does “the physical nature of computation” mean in the setting of the paper???

The author relies on his previous fuzzy logic programming method but what is really at stake here is clearly not logic programming. It is a matter of alpha-cut of a fuzzy set, and its encoding into an atom in a logic.

The author does not explain why p is fuzzy iff p is not fuzzy. This is just claimed as something obvious, but there is absolutely no explanation!!! As this point conditions the rest of the paper, the claim remains unsustained.

The paper also uses acronyms the reader is not at all familiar with like FLP1, FLP2…. that seem to belong to the author thesis. There are other works on fuzzy logic programming, that are more recent.

This note is thus not at all self-contained.

There are mathematical expressions that do not seem to make sense.

What does L \in Pre-FLP1 mean ? (the latter is not a set)

what does \alpha = [0, 1] mean ? as \alpha is a scalar.

The paper seems to cite several famous results quite unconnected to the topic of fuzzy logic programming, let alone P = NP. Why Gödel?? why is this strange dichotomy between ZF set theory and FLP. This parallel looks very superficial and unsustained.

Also some new jargon like “Bipolar disorder” is used without precise explanation.

Questions like 12 are also seemingly irrelevant.

The most formal part of the paper is the definition, theorem and its proof. But again here the property SySBPD is never clearly defined. What does it mean for a Turing machine to terminate with accept iff terminate with accept???? Can you give an example? FLP ? but then it goes back t the very unclear beginning of the paper.

I cannot make sense of the proof either: why is a classical L not forbidden hence in SySBPD ???

Point ii of the proof is also especially obscure.

At the presentation level, the author does not present the note appropriately: the “poetic” epigraph looks pretentious and misplaced, the author just cites his own work and referring to a thesis report is useless as it documents a useless sentence on line 7.

Overall the paper is sketchy, verbose and premature and does not deserve publication.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

With kind regards,

Bernard De Baets & Didier Dubois
Editors-in-Chief
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

47. None of ALL (FSS/JACM) claims have been withdrawn, yet.

This FSS paper was a non-standard 3-page paper only.

FSS requisite feedback was 2 pages!!!

EXPLICIT!!!

48. TCS guys should invoke AI guys to reverse-engineer the peer-review process.

Input: Decision Letter.

Output: Paper.

Compare this paper to the original.

This is the 21st century Turing test;

Discussion not chatting.

Best,

R.K.

49. Date: Feb 4 2008 2:30:23:810PM
To: “Rafee Ebrahim” rafee102000@yahoo.com
cc: fss@irit.fr;Bernard.DeBaets@UGent.be
From: “FSS” fss@elsevier.com
Subject: FSS-D-08-00105
Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-00105
Correspondance: SySBPD FLP-Alpha-Cuts
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Dear Dr. Ebrahim,

This letter is to let you know that your paper entitled

Correspondance: SySBPD FLP-Alpha-Cuts

submitted to Fuzzy Sets and Systems has received a preliminary examination. Based upon the Area Editor’s advice, the Editors-in-Chief regret to let you know that your paper cannot be sent out to referees. The reason is that you did not submit a journal paper. It is impossible to publish this kind of material as such.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
It is not clear what this pdf file is supposed to contain nor what is supposed to be published. The first part is like a letter replying to comments on an earlier rejected submission. The second part is a point by point reply to these comments. Then the author proposes a meta interpreter for a fuzzy programming language. Lastly there is another version of this meta-interpreter.

All this does not make a proper scientific paper and cannot be sent to any referee. The author is invited not to submit this type of material in the future, but rather concentrate on a full-fledged paper, given that the previously submitted one was basically a short note with a collection of what looked like a set of hastily put together statements, some of which being hardy interpretable.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

With kind regards,

Bernard De Baets & Didier Dubois
Editors-in-Chief
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

50. Date: Feb 19 2008 5:39:17:377PM
To: “Rafee Ebrahim” rafee102000@yahoo.com
cc: fss@irit.fr;Bernard.DeBaets@UGent.be
From: “FSS” fss@elsevier.com
Subject: FSS-D-08-00142
Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-00142
A Space-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder Quantum Theory of Gravity – A Fuzzy Logic Programming Reconciliation – SySBPD = SpTBPD
()
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Dear Dr. Ebrahim,

Thank you for submitting your paper entitled

A Space-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder Quantum Theory of Gravity – A Fuzzy Logic Programming Reconciliation – SySBPD = SpTBPD

to Fuzzy Sets and Systems.

However, after checking the contents, the Editors-in-Chief regret not to be able to consider it for publication as your paper is not within the scope of the journal. The editorial board of Fuzzy Sets and Systems is not qualified to evaluate papers in the foundations of physics, nor is the journal in a position to publish such papers. We advise you to submit the paper to a journal in physics.

Nevertheless it is clear that the gap between physics and logic programming is very big and this may make the evaluation of your claims by physicists tricky as well. In any case, it is clear that, considering the paper and its contents, the right way is to try and convince physicists that fuzzy logic programming can help them, not to educate fuzzy sets researchers into the foundations of physics. Unfortunately the aims and scope of our journal are far too limited to consider topics like the one in your paper.

decision which is not motivated by a negative judgment on your work.

With kind regards,

Bernard De Baets & Didier Dubois
Editors-in-Chief
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

51. Dear Dr. Rafee Ebrahim,

“A Space-Temporal Bi-Polar Disorder Quantum Theory of Gravity A Fuzzy Logic Programming Reconciliation SySBPD=SpTBPD”

Before entering a submission to the reviewing process, we check whether it obeys criteria such as the following:

– Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?
– Does the paper contain original ideas and new
results?
– Are the arguments and calculations accurate and
correct?
– Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and
worded well?
– Does the overall quality agree with our very tough
standards?

I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.

Specific comment by a member of the Editorial Board:
Note that it is very important to only submit manuscripts that have been thoroughly prepared and which contain ideas that are well matured. Manuscripts that are insufficiently prepared, that contain ideas that are not far enough developed or worked out with sufficient rigour will be rejected and will not be reconsidered for resubmission.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

With kind regards,

Gerard ‘t Hooft
Chief Editor

52. Non of the above claims have been withdrawn, yet.

The reason is the lack of EXPLICITERS!!!

53. Date: Mar 26 2008 9:34:58:393PM
To: “Rafee Ebrahim” rafee102000@yahoo.com
cc: fss@irit.fr;Bernard.DeBaets@UGent.be
From: “FSS” fss@elsevier.com
Subject: FSS-D-08-00228
Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-00228
A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies not CH Implies ZFC is Inconsistent!
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Dear Dr. Ebrahim,

This letter is to let you know that your paper entitled

A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies not CH Implies ZFC is Inconsistent!

submitted to Fuzzy Sets and Systems has received a preliminary examination. Based upon the Area Editor’s advice, the Editors-in-Chief regret to let you know that your paper cannot be sent out to referees.

To be frank, we are puzzled by your submissions. Just less than one month ago, you submitted a paper which we have (finally) entered in the reviewing process.

The present “page” bears a similar title. If it belongs to the previous paper, you could have waited for the reports and try to incorporate it afterwards. If it does not belong to the previous paper, then its purpose is not clear. It looks more like a one-page poem than a scientific paper. However, in the case of a journal paper, the purpose is to address the reader. Neither the context, content or goals are made clear. Please be so kind as to wait for the evaluation of the already submitted paper before subitting a similar one.

With kind regards,

Bernard De Baets & Didier Dubois
Editors-in-Chief
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

54. Date: Jun 14 2008 1:38:08:643PM
To: “Rafee Ebrahim” rafee102000@yahoo.com
cc: godo@iiia.csic.es
From: “FSS” fss@elsevier.com
Subject: FSS-D-08-00114
Ref.: Ms. No. FSS-D-08-00114
A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder Paradox Implies P vs. NP does not exist!
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

Dear Dr. Ebrahim,

This letter is to let you know that your paper entitled

A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder Paradox Implies P vs. NP does not exist!

submitted to Fuzzy Sets and Systems has been refereed. Based upon the below given referee report and the Area Editor’s advice, the Editors-in-Chief regret to let you know that your paper cannot be accepted for publication. The reason is as follows: the paper contains major errors and unsupported claims, as shown in the attached report, which is sufficient for ending the reviewing process. In particular the claim that the P vs NP issue has to do with fuzzy logic is not convincing. FSS is not really adapted for publishing papers on this issue.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Reviewer #1: General evaluation
Please rate the following criteria using only one of the five following words: BAD, WEAK, FAIR, GOOD, EXCELLENT

a) Relevance to Fuzzy Sets and Systems: __W___
b) Originality: __B___
c) Significance; usefulness: __B___
d) Technical soundness: __B___
e) Reference to the related literature: __B___
f) Presentation: __B___

– Technical soundness
a) ___ Technically correct (after careful check)
b) ___ Apparently correct (after superficial check)
c) ___ Minor errors (please indicate them in the comments for author field)
d) __X_ Major errors (please indicate them in the comments for author field)
e) __X_ Unsupported claims (please provide a detailed explanation in the comments for author field)

This “non-standard” paper suffers from a total lack of a minimum rigorous analysis of all the notions involved in the author’s arguments, which clearly unqualifies this paper for a scientific publication.

There are three main gaps:

1) About the SySBPD paradox and fuzzy logic programming languages. Here there is big confusion about syntactic aspects: predicates of different arity are different predicates, one cannot relate what happens with a predicate p(x,y) with a predicate p(x), even if the intended meaning of the “y” variable is a truth value for p(x). So, in the first FLP example, the query “<- Age-about-21(John, x)” succeeds (with x = 0.9) and this has nothing with the atom “Age-about-21(John)”!, so there the SySBPD problem makes no sense at all.

2) One thing is to be an instance of an undecidable problem (e.g. the halting problem), and
another thing is the problem of computing the set of consequences of a contradiction in a language (this is a trivial problem, and perfectly Turing computable). Yet another thing is that something violates the Turing machine formalization. The latter is required to show an instance of a non-Turing machine computation (i.e. that the Church thesis is wrong).

So, even if a class of languages whose elements were paradoxical could be identified, this could not be used as a counterexample to Church thesis, since they would constitute no instance of non-Turing machine computations. At most, ignoring for a moment the problems in the author’s argument mentioned above, they would just count either as instances of the class of undecidable problems, or as instances of the problem of computing the set of theorems that follow from a contradiction, within a particular language.

3) And even if we had counterexamples to Church thesis showing some intuitively computable processes non-computable by a Turing machine, this could have no effect on the P-vs-NP problem, which by definition only is concerned with Turing machines.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

We hope that the enclosed comments will be useful to improve your work.

With kind regards,

Bernard De Baets & Didier Dubois
Editors-in-Chief
Fuzzy Sets and Systems

55. Dear Reviewer,

Thanks a lot for accepting the FSS invitation for reviewing my paper. In my point of view, it improved the work a lot. Below is my reply to your comments and the new version is attached.

I know nobody in the TCS community. I need them not only for the complexity but also for other physics theory work. This is because some complexity theorists studied quantum mechanics.

Please be as (vehement) as you may feel appropriate before I proceed with this to a conference presentation or further submission. This does not imply that the previous comments were as such.

This “non-standard” paper suffers from a total lack of a minimum rigorous analysis of all the notions involved in the author’s arguments, which clearly unqualifies this paper for a scientific publication.

I hope the new version improved the work. The paradox is presented in the form of a theorem.

There are three main gaps:
1) About the SySBPD paradox and fuzzy logic programming languages. Here there is big confusion about syntactic aspects: predicates of different arity are different predicates, one cannot relate what happens with a predicate p(x,y) with a predicate p(x), even if the intended meaning of the “y” variable is a truth value for p(x). So, in the first FLP example, the query “<- Age-about-21(John, x)” succeeds (with x = 0.9) and this has nothing with the atom “Age-about-21(John)”!, so there the SySBPD problem makes no sense at all.

The new version does not compare predicates with different arities at all.

2) One thing is to be an instance of an undecidable problem (e.g. the halting problem),

You can run this ground program against this ground goal, it will never go into an infinite loop. There is a proof that it is one step computation which is decidable and in P.

and another thing is the problem of computing the set of consequences of a contradiction in a language (this is a trivial problem, and perfectly Turing computable).

It is just a self-contradictory fact. The only consequence of it is itself.

Yet another thing is that something violates the Turing machine formalization. The latter is required to show an instance of a non-Turing machine computation (i.e. that the Church thesis is wrong).

In the current version, there is no claim that the Church-Turing thesis is wrong.

So, even if a class of languages whose elements were paradoxical could be identified, this could not be used as a counterexample to Church thesis, since they would constitute no instance of non-Turing machine computations. At most, ignoring for a moment the problems in the author’s argument mentioned above, they would just count either as instances of the class of undecidable problems, or as instances of the problem of computing the set of theorems that follow from a contradiction, within a particular language.

3) And even if we had counterexamples to Church thesis showing some intuitively computable processes non-computable by a Turing machine, this could have no effect on the P-vs-NP problem, which by definition only is concerned with Turing machines.

The current paper presents the argument as a counter-example to NP-completeness with proofs and an argument entitled: “Why SAT is not NP-complete”.

With best wishes and regards,

Rafee.

56. Just posted at:

http://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/debates/#comment-528

=============================

I have to assume that I’m illegitimate, obscure,

being give some legitmacy here:

https://lucatrevisan.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/inducing-percussions-in-all-of-mathematics/#comment-1406

Even if people don’t say so, I have to select the path of self-punishment.

Otherwise, both Aristotle & Plato would get angry at me.

If either of them, I might be safe. But never when both.

Self-punishement:

2 decades+ of research: sole, orphan 1 paper.

“After all this MESS, soundness, completeness and fixpoint theory are a complete DARK question”,

After analyzing dozens of REJECTED papers, the result is that ALL is a MESS.

Total MESS.

ZFC is (irreparably) Inconsistent!

Ridiculous Career,

Publicationless author,

Rafee Kamouna.

57. ICALP 2009 Workshop Proposal Notification Christos Zaroliagis AddFriday, November 21, 2008 10:24:27 AM
To:Rafee Ebrahim
Cc:Zaroliagis Christos ; spirakis@cti.gr; ichatz@cti.gr

Dear Rafee,

I regret to inform you that your workshop proposal on Bi-Polarism Theory,
to be held as a satellite event of ICALP 2009, was not accepted by the
conference organization.

Nevertheless, we hope that you can still attend ICALP 2009.

Best regards,

Christos Zaroliagis
ICALP 2009 Workshops Chair

_____________________________________________________________________
Christos Zaroliagis Computer Technology Institute and
Associate Professor Department of Computer Eng & Informatics
University of Patras, 26500 Patras, Greece
zaro@ceid.upatras.gr http://www.ceid.upatras.gr/faculty/zaro/
Tel:+30-2610-996955;+30-2610-960200 Fax:+30-2610-969011/960490

58. Friday, November 21, 2008 6:48 AM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified “Rafee Ebrahim” Add sender to Contacts
To: “Christos Zaroliagis” Cc: rafee102000@yahoo.com, spirakis@cti.gr, ichatz@cti.grMessage contains

attachments Visit_Prof_Kamouna.pdf (223KB)

Dear Christos,

Thanks a lot for your message. The first conference on “Bi-Polarism Theory” – (Bi-Polar 2009) will be held in Irbid National University, Jordan (12-13 April, 2009). I’m visiting Barcelona, Toulouse & Prague quite soon (invitation letter attached).

The purpose of my visit is to present the results:

1. Continuum Hypothesis = “False”.

2. Axiom of Choice = “False”. as well as others – as in the (rejected) proposal.

If you don’t mind that those results be presented in Greece in my next trip soon (to Prof Spirakis), I would be happy – before I can make any decision on attending ICALP 2009. Otherwise, you are (warmly) welcome to attend “Bi-Polar 2009″. With deep thanks for your on time (timely) reply.

All the best,

Prof Rafee Kamouna,
Bi-Polar 2009 Conference Chair,
Department of Computer Science,
Irbid National University,
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

——————————————————————————–
From: Christos Zaroliagis
To: Rafee Ebrahim
Cc: Zaroliagis Christos ; spirakis@cti.gr; ichatz@cti.gr
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:24:27 PM
Subject: ICALP 2009 Workshop Proposal Notification

Dear Rafee,

I regret to inform you that your workshop proposal on Bi-Polarism Theory,
to be held as a satellite event of ICALP 2009, was not accepted by the
conference organization.

Nevertheless, we hope that you can still attend ICALP 2009.

Best regards,

Christos Zaroliagis
ICALP 2009 Workshops Chair

_____________________________________________________________________
Christos Zaroliagis Computer Technology Institute and
Associate Professor Department of Computer Eng & Informatics
University of Patras,

59. AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988Monday, July 28, 2008 7:26 AM
From: “jrnl-initsub@ams.org” Add sender to Contacts To: rafee102000@yahoo.com
—–Inline Attachment Follows—–

The following manuscript has been forwarded to the editor for review:

Journal: Journal of the American Mathematical Society
Editor: Weinan E
ID: ja8988
Author(s): Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna (rafee102000@yahoo.com)
Title: A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is not NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist, ZFC is inconsistent.

Please direct any further communication to the editor. Contact information is available at:

http://www.ams.org/jams/jamsedit.html

Thank you,
Electronic Prepress Group
American Mathematical Society

60. TCS Guys:”Happy New Year” for ALL,

2008 = Two Thousand Great.

2009 = Greater for everyone!

Best,

R.K.

61. FAX:

001-(609) 258-1367

Attn. Prof Weinan

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Rafee Ebrahim
To: weinan@math.princeton.edu
Cc: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:27:40 AM
Subject: Confirmation Needed – AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

Dear Prof Weinan, Is it possible to confirm that reviewers have been invited for this paper? That’s to say, there is no submission problem. I talked to you twice on the phone, sent one fax before. Waiting for your confirmation.

Please understand that I can come at any time to Princeton to present the following results:

1. Continuum Hypothesis = “False”.

2. Axiom of Choice = “False”. Hence, ZFC is inconsistent.

Yours Sincereley,

Prof Rafee Kamouna,
Department of Computer Science,
Irbid National University,
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

—- Forwarded Message —-
From: “jrnl-initsub@ams.org”
To: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:26:22 PM
Subject: AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

The following manuscript has been forwarded to the editor for review:

Journal: Journal of the American Mathematical Society
Editor: Weinan E
ID: ja8988
Author(s): Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna (rafee102000@yahoo.com)
Title: A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is not NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist, ZFC is inconsistent.

Please direct any further communication to the editor. Contact information is available at:

http://www.ams.org/jams/jamsedit.html

Thank you,
Electronic Prepress Group
American Mathematical Society

62. Second Fax:

001-(609) 258-1367

Attn. Prof Weinan

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Rafee Ebrahim
To: weinan@math.princeton.edu
Cc: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:27:40 AM
Subject: Confirmation Needed – AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

Dear Prof Weinan,

Is it possible to confirm that reviewers have been invited for this paper? That’s to say, there is no submission problem. I talked to you twice on the phone, sent one fax before. Waiting for your confirmation (by e-mail: rafee102000@yahoo.com).

Please understand that I can come at any time to Princeton to present the following results:

1. Continuum Hypothesis = “False”.
2. Axiom of Choice = “False”. Hence, ZFC is inconsistent.

Yours Sincereley,

Prof Rafee Kamouna,
Department of Computer Science,
Irbid National University,
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: “jrnl-initsub@ams.org”
To: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:26:22 PM
Subject: AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

The following manuscript has been forwarded to the editor for review:

Journal: Journal of the American Mathematical Society
Editor: Weinan E
ID: ja8988
Author(s): Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna (rafee102000@yahoo.com)
Title: A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is not NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist, ZFC is inconsistent.

Please direct any further communication to the editor. Contact information is available at:

http://www.ams.org/jams/jamsedit.html

Thank you,
Electronic Prepress Group
American Mathematical Society

63. Third Fax:

Attn. Prof Weinan

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Rafee Ebrahim
To: weinan@math.princeton.edu
Cc: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2008 4:27:40 AM
Subject: Confirmation Needed – AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

Dear Prof Weinan,

Is it possible to confirm that reviewers have been invited for this paper? That’s to say, there is no submission problem. I talked to you twice on the phone, sent two faxes before. Waiting for your confirmation (by e-mail only – not by fax: rafee102000@yahoo.com).

Please understand that I can come at any time to Princeton to present the following results:

1. Continuum Hypothesis = “False”.

2. Axiom of Choice = “False”. Hence, ZFC is inconsistent.

Yours Sincereley,

Prof Rafee Kamouna,
Department of Computer Science,
Irbid National University,Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: “jrnl-initsub@ams.org”
To: rafee102000@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:26:22 PM
Subject: AMS Manuscript Status Update, ja8988

The following manuscript has been forwarded to the editor for review:

Journal: Journal of the American Mathematical Society
Editor: Weinan E
ID: ja8988
Author(s): Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna (rafee102000@yahoo.com)
Title: A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT is not NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist, ZFC is inconsistent.

Please direct any further communication to the editor. Contact information is available at:

http://www.ams.org/jams/jamsedit.html

Thank you,
Electronic Prepress Group
American Mathematical Society

64. From: “STOC2009 Chair” Add sender to Contacts To: rafee102000@yahoo.com, sabatier10@hotmail.comCc: stocchair09@gmail.com

The submissions details are as follows:
Submission number: 104

You can still revise this submission by going to

https://secure.iacr.org/websubrev/stoc2009/submit/revise.php?subId=104&subPwd=amGBLjrNgw

Make sure that you uploaded the right file to the server.
your file back by going to

Title: SAT is (NOT) NP-complete, CH=”False” & AC=”False”, ZFC is Inconsistent, The Trouble between the Turing Machine & Fuzzy Logic Programming, Implications to NP-Completeness & Descriptive Complexity

Authors: Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna

Contact: rafee102000@yahoo.com,sabatier10@hotmail.com

Category: computational complexity

Key words: P vs. NP, Continuum Hypothesis, Axiom of Choice, NP-completeness, Complexity Theory, Foundations of Computer Science, Foundations of Mathematics

Abstract:

65. Susan Haack, Again!

Our best friend,

but this time Charles Aznavour narrates her story from Warwick to Miami.

Best,

R.K.

66. La logique floue a La bohème

Je vous parle d’un temps
Que les jeunes doctorants

Ne peuvent pas connaître
La logique floue en ce temps-là
n’a fait que quelque pas

Et quand elle a son bac, je me suis viens d’etre

Et si l’honorable Oxbridge

Avant elle part a l’Amérique

C’est toi qu’on t’appelle philosophie
Et comme ça qu’on s’est connu
Pas un logique, mais toutes les logiques

La logique floue, la logique floue
Ça voulait dire: une illusion qui meurt
La logique floue, la logique floue
Vraiment mais pas en plein cœur

Et dans plusieurs centres
Personne n’était pour, tous sont contre

Et je n’ai jamais attendu la gloire
Et on était bien si malheureux
Et pas comme on peut le vouloir
Pour moi, tout parait ennuyeux

Et quand quelque bistro
Contre un bon repas chaud
Nous prenait une toile
Nous récitions des vers
Groupés autour du poêle
En oubliant l’hiver

La logique floue, la logique floue
Ça voulait dire: en Angleterre
La logique floue, la logique floue
Recherches qu’on jette par terre

Souvent il m’arrivait
Devant mon ordinateur
De passer des nuits blanches
Retouchant la programmation
De la ligne d’une attestation

De cette langue et sans enfin

Et ce n’est qu’au matin
Qu’on s’asseyait enfin
Devant un café-crème
Epuisés mais ravis
Fallait-il que l’on s’aime
Et qu’on aime la vie

La logique floue, la logique floue
Ça voulait dire on a vingt-cinq ans
La logique floue, la logique floue
Et nous vivions de l’air du temps

Quand au hasard des jours
Je m’en vais faire un tour
Des sites web d’Internet
Je ne reconnais plus
Ni Elkan, ni Suzy, De Coventry!
Qui ont vu ma jeunesse

A Miami devenu une scientiste

Où la loi est une violoniste
Et ton Pierce le guitariste

Dans ton nouveau décor
La logique semble triste
Et les cœurs sont morts

La logique floue, la logique floue
Ton Zadeh & Co., On la fait comme:”Aristote”
La logique floue, la logique floue
Ça voulait dire a Suzy toujours:”Bravoooooooo!!!”

The motivation for this composition is that the proper designation is:”The Fuzzy Logic Community” and not “Zadeh & Co.”, I am angry to be designated as:”x є Co. ” – Oxbridge!

67. Grand Prof Hajek composes music in the introduction of “Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic”,

“…… that Fuzzy Logic is impossible….”

“…………………. Yet, it generated a big discuSSION….”

Best,

R.K.

68. I recently heard a story about a photographer whose project has been to take a picture of himself every single day for the last 10 years. When asked about his goals, he said, in a very serious tone, that he’d like to display his work in “a big gallery”.

69. Dear Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna,

We are sorry to inform you that your submission

“SAT is (NOT) NP-complete, CH=”False” & AC=”False”, ZFC is Inconsistent, The Trouble between the Turing Machine & Fuzzy Logic Programming, Implications to NP-Completeness & Descriptive Complexity”

was not accepted to STOC 2009.

We received many good submissions, but could only accept a small number
of them to the program.

The selection of the papers was a challenging and difficult task. The
Program Committee members have put in a significant effort in order to
provide useful feedback to the authors, but due to time constraints, this
was not always possible. We will send you the comments on your paper in a
few days.

Thank you very much for submitting your work to STOC 2009,
and we hope to see you at the conference.

Sincerely,

Michael Mitzenmacher
STOC 2009 program chair

70. Dear Rafee Ebrahim Kamouna,

“SAT is (NOT) NP-complete, CH=”False” & AC=”False”, ZFC is Inconsistent, The Trouble between the Turing Machine & Fuzzy Logic Programming, Implications to NP-Completeness & Descriptive Complexity”

that was submitted to STOC 2009.

I have chosen to include the scores and confidence as well as the reviews.
The scores were given on the following 5 point scale:

1: Bottom 1/2 of submissions.
2: Top 1/2 but not top 1/3 of submissions.
3: Top 1/3 but not top 1/5 of submissions.
4: Top 1/5 but not top 1/10 of submissions.
5: Top 1/10 of submissions.

Confidence ranged from 1 (low) to 3 (high).

Please keep in mind that both the scores and the reviews may not capture the confidential discussion at the meeting or other information used in making the final decision. You should therefore consider the information potentially noisy. However, the reviews and scores may provide useful feedback for further versions of your work.

Thank you again for submitting your work to STOC 2009.

Sincerely,
Michael Mitzenmacher
PC Chair, STOC 2009
************************************************************************

Score: 1
Confidence: 3

The paper is not sufficiently mathematically rigorous to warrant
consideration.

========================================================================

Score: 1
Confidence: 3

A serious results such P!=NP requires serious vetting and review by the
scientific committee. This is not an appropriate venue for this.

========================================================================

Score: 1
Confidence: 3

This proof is insufficient, and a P=NP proof needs to be properly vetted
before being submitted to this forum. Furthermore, the writing/English in
this paper is quite poor, which makes it very difficult to understand the
argument that the author is trying to make.

71. your paper submitted to JAMS
Saturday, January 31, 2009 3:05 PM
From: “Weinan E” Add sender to Contacts To: rafee102000@yahoo.com, “Cheryl Cantore”

Title: A Syntactico-Semantical Bi-Polar Disorder FLP Paradox Implies SAT
is not NP-complete, P vs. NP does not exist, ZFC is inconsistent.

Dear Prof Kamouna,

I am writing as an editor of the Journal of the American Mathematical
Society to let you know that we have decided to decline
the above mentioned manuscript for publication in JAMS.

Sincerely,

Weinan E
Editor

72. From London:

Prof Rafee Kamouna announces a one million dollar prize for refuting (ALL) the claims of his new “Bi-Polarism Theory”. The funds for the prize have already been secured as a proper subset of the famous (Benizité) Kamouna collection, known to all dealers in Egypt as the Chief Justice Family Collection.

As the extensive (13 months) peer-review process did not result in any single explicit counter-argument yet, followed by the Bi-Polar 2009-I planned event with no submissions, Kamouna definitely find excuses for all colleagues. Hopefully they would do the same for this unilateral decision for the prize. However, the number of platonic mathematicians is expected to increase exponentially. According to Plato mathematics purifies and elevates the soul, something that cannot happen when you are driving your Corvette. Rules for the prize will be formulated collaboratively, so enquiries are most welcome.

================== Benizité ===============
Dictionnaire des Peintres, Sculpteurs, Dessinateurs et Graveurs (French Edition)

Dictionary of Artists – 14 Volumes (First English Edition)

73. Bi-Polarism, my theory go shared & shared,

You contain no lie that may get me scared,

He who came with truth,
He who believed him, both rared,

[RARED]
“the English grammar is not respected”, Don Sannella’s reviewer.

74. I deeply apologize for Prof Luca Trevisan, further information would be available at my blog.

All the best to all,

best,

R.K.

75. Spot op met dit schrijf-up, ik werkelijk uitgaan deze website moet wat meer overweging. Ik zal waarschijnlijk hoogstwaarschijnlijk worden weer te leren wat meer , bedankt voor deze info.

76. thank you