More Mentalizing

 

I don't know if I'm confused about the idea that billionaires are stalking me.  Surely, someone with a lot of resources is sending a lot of people around to do gestures at me.


It seems that there are two groups...good guys and bad guys.  What if the bad guys are also linked to the US government?  Maybe they are being sent around by a powerful US government official.  It could also be that the bad guy who used the "Sandra Hesse" code was a DOD government official who had obtained access to Dr. Steg's notes based on me having to submit them for my background check.  I don't think the Sandra Hesse code was a good clue, I think it was meant to intimidate and confuse me.  The person who is doing this has serious psychological problems.


I think the most reliable code is Judith Glasser's "July 30" code.   The question is, is Dr. Glasser *intending* to send out a code like this?  If she is intending to, then it is almost certainly correct.  I think I am "on her radar," she called me before I started work at DRC in January 2011 (I don't remember exactly what month the call was in though).


I could email Dr. Glasser, but I would prefer not to.  I"m sort of scared of what she might say.  I doubt she would admit that the thing is a code.  She might simply lie, to protect her sources.  I don't mean that as a criticism.


Anyway, I realized that my P vs. NP proof is probably wrong.  It is OK.  It says at the bottom of the file what my conclusion is.  Fortunately, my GLL proof and my MSR proof are still good, I'm pretty sure.  Those proofs are much simpler.


I should have a fairly relaxing day today.  I have to go to one group, and that's it.  Other than that, I have free time all day. :)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more