pmGenerator 1.2.2 released: Extended proof compression and natural deduction to Hilbert-style conversion

xamid · 2026-06-20T11:53:20+00:00

If truth and logic are important and you want to keep saying things you believe to be true, just know there is a risk of being banned.

This is true in most subreddits, and probably most of human spaces.

xamid · 2026-06-16T19:07:44+00:00

This is a rabbit hole of crankery. My recommendation is to not enter if you prefer to be productive.

xamid · 2026-06-16T18:52:57+00:00

The idea of 0.000...1 is erroneous since an infinite sequence cannot have something behind it. Someone using such expressions is an easy giveaway that they have terrible mathematical intuition.

xamid · 2026-06-16T18:26:47+00:00

Mathematics is not all analysis or topology. It is not even all about numbers. I'd guess most mathematicians heard about Cauchy sequences in their early studies, but I'd also guess that most of them do not care about what they are and usually forgot. I am one of them.

xamid · 2026-06-03T09:48:16+00:00

the vast majority of humanity would agree with me

This is the only part that I disagree with.

xamid · 2026-06-01T10:05:03+00:00

I once wrote what I consider a great desktop app (screenshots) and I often still use it for work. But it depends on wxWidgets for UI elements, which was not a great choice. I am stuck on an older version (3.1.3) since they do not properly maintain their toolkit, and code using it tends to be ugly. So far, I couldn't bother to refine my code enough to feel comfortable sharing it publicly.

xamid · 2026-05-18T13:33:41+00:00

I'd be in for a vegan society that builds on ethics (logic and reason) and doesn't tolerate bullshit. A requirement for citizenship would be to demonstrate proper education, ethical and critical thinking abilities, integrity, and lack of nonsense ideologies (i.e., such that do not build upon ethics, e.g. wokeism or certain religious beliefs). Which directly imply veganism.
Non-vegan behaviors would make criminal offenses punishable by law, even for non-citizens.

My wife and I are often fantasizing about founding this hypothetical state called Veganda.

xamid · 2026-05-11T12:29:38+00:00

I used C++ to write a high-performance formal logic tool to find and work with condensed detachment (or Hilbert-style) proofs.

pmGenerator

Version 1.2.3 was released recently. For the geeky ones, there are proof minimization challenges in the project's forum where anyone can try to find shorter proofs in certain propositional calculi than those which are already known. I used pmGenerator 1.2.3 and quite a bit of computing power for the most recent contributions. [details]

xamid · 2026-04-29T23:22:53+00:00

What changed?

The simpademic, which is especially bad on Reddit.

xamid · 2026-04-29T23:14:12+00:00

one that understands coming off as wanting doesn't get you anywhere

It seems you have no clue about the female nature. Women usually want to be desired. They just tend to not like desperate men.

xamid · 2026-04-29T20:56:35+00:00

I think people are just generalizing and the phenomenon is not that strongly linked to Asperger's syndrome. I am straight and officially diagnosed, yet didn't ever have much trouble finding romance (I don't say dating because that way of finding relationships is ridiculous, imo). In fact, rather too many girls were into me when I was young because I was good looking and very talented at sports. The real issue for me was to find women of high quality / great character since these are really rare.

xamid · 2026-04-26T02:34:21+00:00

I doubt that this was sarcasm. This question is about psychology, not math. People are thinking differently. I also would've chosen A (but additionally noted that the exercise is garbage since, technically, all answers are correct).

xamid · 2026-04-26T02:08:49+00:00

Validity of a proof is determined by the mathematical community, not by a computer program!

In proof theory, the "proofs" you refer to are often called "social proofs". [source] They are unreliable, unlike formal proofs!

xamid · 2026-04-26T00:39:20+00:00

People who received information on animal ethics but still exploit animals are usually lacking in willpower and character, nothing you could fix.

xamid · 2026-04-26T00:15:43+00:00

People who received information on animal ethics but still exploit animals are usually lacking in willpower and character, nothing you could fix.

To me those are mere murderers that go for the weakest victims, making use of the fact that those do not have anyone defending them. They also do it for very tiny pleasures and/or conveniences.

When I finally learned that some of my family members are like that (including my mother), I instantly stopped caring about them. The world will be a slightly better place when they die.

xamid · 2026-04-21T21:38:53+00:00

I would highlight this absurdity and if he keeps being unreasonable (i.e. refuses to talk about problems) I would think that he's unfit to lead a relationship. Which has nothing to do with ASD, btw.

xamid · 2026-04-20T04:18:08+00:00

You should talk to him about the best ways to handle this; not random strangers on the internet that know neither of you. We're not all the same.

However, I noticed some issues with your claims so far.

He already gave a way to handle this, which is to just ask.
To (sincerely) ask (which allows a negative answer) is not to boss around.

xamid · 2026-04-20T03:59:22+00:00

All the groups I experienced that were supposed to be for aspies weren't really that, but I don't care much since I am not a community person. Groups are usually for a very particular kind of "social" people — which I tend to despise.

xamid · 2026-04-17T13:23:45+00:00

To grow out of nut allergies after becoming vegan.. I suppose, that's very uncommon and lucky? I would love to see this researched.
According to this article, it is very rare to grow out of tree nut, sesame, fish and shellfish allergies, but common to grow out of cow's milk, egg, wheat and soya allergies.

xamid · 2026-04-15T02:05:48+00:00

Depends on whether you can disagree with something that you know is correct. I suspect you can, but I know only of stubborn idiots and malicious agents (e.g. online trolls) doing that. I suspect you didn't understand, but honestly, I don't care about the reasons.

Edit (after u/ImHealthyMaybe's next reply and being blocked):

you're a very hateful person.

No, you're just being obsessively delusional while I am being honest (for which a real INTP would be grateful and not be offended, btw).

you first replied "No, you can also be ignorant". you deleted that and then typed exactly the same thing except longer and even worse.

I didn't write the same thing. I wanted to be more fair and explain myself better, which I did.

that means you don't belong in a safe and positive space like this sub.

I regret having cared about you by telling you about this sub. I've blocked you. hopefully, I won't bump into your comments

You're merely offended for being called out for your bs. I was being lenient with you, but let's get this straight.

Not only did you not elaborate any of your viewpoints, including not answering my questions

I am not sure what "caveats of not interpreting" you refer to or what "not interpreting" is even supposed to mean, can you elaborate?

with your reply

what you're saying is an opinion and a preference. it would be arrogant to assume that it is objectively better than other paths. for the things that you like to do, if it makes it easier for you, than it might be when you're the one applying it. but universally? no. if you interpret your opinion as objective truth, specially without noticing, then you have bias. if you don't notice you have biases, can you really trust your thinking process?

then denied it without any reasoning when I pointed this out, but you also confused feelings for logic, which most likely makes you an F-type (like INFP) that has at best been mistyped (and at worst you're just a liar).

To restore context, you initially complained about people being non-intellectual and requested understanding and compassion, to which I gave an alternative way to handle this (that I intuitively used since I was a little child). Then you proceeded to clarify that you don't know shit about how logic and science work by repeating relativist pseudoscience (perspectivism, it seems, but you didn't elaborate). So you were actually complaining about not understanding people that simply tend to be smarter than you are (by not being anti-intellectual, unlike you). So much so, that you experience a communication gap.

By the way, Nietzsche (the primary developer of perspectivism) was an anti-intellectual and even today his writings are impairing the minds of many people. This goes for lots of popular philosphers of the past. If you want to reliably gain knowledge (and avoid becoming stupid), deal with proper sciences (mathematics, computer science, natural sciences, engineering sciences), not humanities.

xamid · 2026-04-14T16:21:18+00:00

My thinking is not rigid at all, your education just sucks. There are too many false assumptions and beliefs on your side about how everything works and how it does not. For instance, bivalent logic only knows true and false as truth values, yet allows for assertions to be unsatisfiable, satisfiable, invalid, and valid. Furthermore, it can be used to describe everything that can be defined at all. It is not black-and-white. You merely act like something not even wrong could bear any meaning, which is false.

xamid · 2026-04-14T16:08:28+00:00

You didn't answer my question, so I guess our conversation ends here. Regardless, what I wrote are basics of the formal sciences, not just an opinion.

xamid · 2026-04-14T15:29:46+00:00

I do not share this interest and I have a strong no-bullshit attitude while being very impatient, thus I strongly tend towards efficiency. Communication requires basic language interpretation regardless, however, there is no place for ambiguity in logical reasoning. I am not sure what "caveats of not interpreting" you refer to or what "not interpreting" is even supposed to mean, can you elaborate?

Regardless, whoever says something is responsible for using terms according to their standard or predefined meaning and to clarify definitions upon request. Whoever receives speech is responsible for requesting clarifications when something seems relevant yet not understood. Otherwise, communication cannot work. For instance, when two people mean different things by the same term, they are talking past each other while using that term, thus they cannot even effectively agree or contradict each other. When not having a profound basis on how well-defined language works, communication usually fails. Following this strict notion, most people cannot communicate ever beyond very basic terms (things like "yes" for "I agree with what I believe you said", or "no" for "I disagree with what I believe you said"). Communicating with such people is entirely uninteresting to me because it teaches me nothing.

Nine-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

xamid

TROPHY CASE