Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Ill bring a few boxes of cool records if that technology is supported

 

Hell yeah, vinyl ftw.

[HairyMaclairy]

I’m still working on a basis for numbers being a finite field.  Which makes sense if you think space time is bounded.  Less so if not.  

[HairyMaclairy]

Ok work with me here.  How do we achieve the assumption that numbers are a finite field?

Feel free to refer me to beginner level reading to save you typing it all out.

As for a "beginner level" introduction, I'm not really aware of any that isn't gritty rigorous Math. And in that case any would be as good as any other I suppose, since the definitions are always the same (except for perhaps the symbols used). If you feel like digging deeper I'm sure you'll find any number of resources on Google. All my notes and books for these topics are in non-English though, so I can't recommend you any reference here. But alas.


Assumptions are created out of more or less thin air. Generally based on past experiences (I'm not sure if we can arrive at any assumption without making references to previous ones, which is a problem in and of itself). It's also not exactly that numbers "are" a finite field, they can be depending on how many you have to play with. The numbers we usually use are not a finite field, you always have a unique "+1". However.


In the case of finite fields, if you want to go from the "human experience" side you could think of it like this.

If you think that infinity exists, then there's not much reason to argue here since you can just keep adding numbers and always get a unique new one, so 1+1 will always be 2 in that world.

If you however believe that infinity can't exist in reality, then the only conclusion is that any field of numbers must be finite, because you'll eventually run out. And in that world you eventually come full circle, otherwise you can't have a number field that functions in the way we understand numbers. It is the only way to formalize our natural understanding of numbers (that I am currently aware of).


As for what fields are, here's a very brief overview that leaves out a fair deal of the gritty parts that are necessary to formalize this. But this should hopefully give somewhat of a more formal intuition that you could compare against our natural intuition.

A field can be any set of numbers that satisfies a few properties. The most important ones for the topic we're having are the existence of a set of elements (or numbers), the existence of two operations (e.g. addition and multiplication), the existence of a neutral element for each operation, and the existence of an inverse element for each operation.

Let's take {0,1} as the set of numbers. And addition and multiplication as its two operations. The operation "o" (+ or *) now has to ensure that each element has a unique inverse element. So if you take any element X , there must be another element Y such that X o Y spits out the neutral element regarding "o". For addition this is 0 (you add 0, shit happens), for multiplication it's 1 (you multiply by 1, nothing happens). If you think about it, whenever you invert a number you get its neutral, 3 * 1/3 = 1, 3 + (-3) = 0.

If these properties are violated you can somehow show that the whole natural intuition of numbers just breaks down, but I can't think of a good example on the spot. Been too long since I've done anything in this area.


In the usual fields the inverse element would just be -X for addition and 1/x for multiplication. In this finite field you can't do this, because "1/1" clearly does not exist as neither does an element called "-1".

However, with the circular arrangement you can quickly see that:

0+0 = 0
1+1 = 0

0*1 = 0
1*0 = 0
1*1 = 1

Hence, each element has an inverse regarding multiplication and addition, and our intuition still works. This way to look at it satisfies the requirements of a field. It just so happens to be finite. This curiously doesn't work for any set of numbers either, the number of elements has to be infinite, a prime, or a prime power.
If you want to get technical, then "2" in the way we normally understand it won't give you "2+2 = 0", but there is an abstract field that extends {0,1} in a way such that the elements that you could "call '2'" would satisfy 2+2 = 0. You can easily get 2+3=0 for {0,1,2,3,4} with the usual addition though (check this yourself if you'd like as an exercise).


As for 'why' this works, I doubt anybody knows. Emergent properties?

Essentially, fields are merely a formalization of the way in which we naturally came to use numbers based on our experience of reality. And the formalization naturally gives rise to both finite and infinite fields. There are also weird fields that have polynomials as their "numbers" and where "1" is suddenly a polynomial (the constant polynomial 1). But you would never expect either of these by not carefully thinking about the fundamentals, what you already know, the implications of either, or what other ways you could view what you already know in.

These weird mysteries are why I'm against quickly rushing to conclusions on any subject and prefer looking for as many explanations and vantage points as I am currently capable of. The universe has a way to always screw us when we think we "know", and to reward us with new exciting experiences if we remain open.

Quoting this so I don’t lose it. Am working on this as well. 

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

What’s he been smoking?

Not sure, but I need to know. For science.

[Gyrsur]

Ok work with me here.  How do we achieve the assumption that numbers are a finite field?

Feel free to refer me to beginner level reading to save you typing it all out.

As for a "beginner level" introduction, I'm not really aware of any that isn't gritty rigorous Math. And in that case any would be as good as any other I suppose, since the definitions are always the same (except for perhaps the symbols used). If you feel like digging deeper I'm sure you'll find any number of resources on Google. All my notes and books for these topics are in non-English though, so I can't recommend you any reference here. But alas.


Assumptions are created out of more or less thin air. Generally based on past experiences (I'm not sure if we can arrive at any assumption without making references to previous ones, which is a problem in and of itself). It's also not exactly that numbers "are" a finite field, they can be depending on how many you have to play with. The numbers we usually use are not a finite field, you always have a unique "+1". However.


In the case of finite fields, if you want to go from the "human experience" side you could think of it like this.

If you think that infinity exists, then there's not much reason to argue here since you can just keep adding numbers and always get a unique new one, so 1+1 will always be 2 in that world.

If you however believe that infinity can't exist in reality, then the only conclusion is that any field of numbers must be finite, because you'll eventually run out. And in that world you eventually come full circle, otherwise you can't have a number field that functions in the way we understand numbers. It is the only way to formalize our natural understanding of numbers (that I am currently aware of).


As for what fields are, here's a very brief overview that leaves out a fair deal of the gritty parts that are necessary to formalize this. But this should hopefully give somewhat of a more formal intuition that you could compare against our natural intuition.

A field can be any set of numbers that satisfies a few properties. The most important ones for the topic we're having are the existence of a set of elements (or numbers), the existence of two operations (e.g. addition and multiplication), the existence of a neutral element for each operation, and the existence of an inverse element for each operation.

Let's take {0,1} as the set of numbers. And addition and multiplication as its two operations. The operation "o" (+ or *) now has to ensure that each element has a unique inverse element. So if you take any element X , there must be another element Y such that X o Y spits out the neutral element regarding "o". For addition this is 0 (you add 0, shit happens), for multiplication it's 1 (you multiply by 1, nothing happens). If you think about it, whenever you invert a number you get its neutral, 3 * 1/3 = 1, 3 + (-3) = 0.

If these properties are violated you can somehow show that the whole natural intuition of numbers just breaks down, but I can't think of a good example on the spot. Been too long since I've done anything in this area.


In the usual fields the inverse element would just be -X for addition and 1/x for multiplication. In this finite field you can't do this, because "1/1" clearly does not exist as neither does an element called "-1".

However, with the circular arrangement you can quickly see that:

0+0 = 0
1+1 = 0

0*1 = 0
1*0 = 0
1*1 = 1

Hence, each element has an inverse regarding multiplication and addition, and our intuition still works. This way to look at it satisfies the requirements of a field. It just so happens to be finite. This curiously doesn't work for any set of numbers either, the number of elements has to be infinite, a prime, or a prime power.
If you want to get technical, then "2" in the way we normally understand it won't give you "2+2 = 0", but there is an abstract field that extends {0,1} in a way such that the elements that you could "call '2'" would satisfy 2+2 = 0. You can easily get 2+3=0 for {0,1,2,3,4} with the usual addition though (check this yourself if you'd like as an exercise).


As for 'why' this works, I doubt anybody knows. Emergent properties?

Essentially, fields are merely a formalization of the way in which we naturally came to use numbers based on our experience of reality. And the formalization naturally gives rise to both finite and infinite fields. There are also weird fields that have polynomials as their "numbers" and where "1" is suddenly a polynomial (the constant polynomial 1). But you would never expect either of these by not carefully thinking about the fundamentals, what you already know, the implications of either, or what other ways you could view what you already know in.

These weird mysteries are why I'm against quickly rushing to conclusions on any subject and prefer looking for as many explanations and vantage points as I am currently capable of. The universe has a way to always screw us when we think we "know", and to reward us with new exciting experiences if we remain open.

Quoting this so I don’t lose it. Am working on this as well.  

double quote for safety reasons.

can you guys f***ing tell me what about you're talking??  

EDIT: some CS stuff from your days in university? Formal Language Theory?

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Every Thursday, we could scoot around on our jet-skis-made-up-as-mock-pirate-ships, and Nerf-Rocket the shit out of JJG's island.
............ I mean, I can dare to dream, right ?

Remember what happened to Snowball in Animal Farm?  or Piggy in Lord of the Flies?
Not looking good for JJG in this "dream".

I studied Lord Of The Flies at school for English GCSE, got a B grade lol.
As soon as dat conch got smashed shit started going down
Ahhhh memories of being at school - What a waste of time that was.

OK. See... I have wordy-man on ignore, so I would not normally see his post, but he has a terribly bad attitude about this possible utopia.

He's not thinking of "fun-factor" for defensive purposes on his end.

Can you imagine ? Coconut trebuchets, slings, and cannons, for example, aimed with some level of skill at us scooting Nerf-Gun-Pirates ?

At worst, some dude gets knocked the fuck off his scooter, life-jacket comes into play, and "pirate-squad" immediately tends to any fallen team-mates.

At best, coconuts float on water, so we'll have a bountiful harvest upon retreat.

Perhaps we up our game, and develop jet-skis with some sort of hydrostatic-pressure based mobile cannons, capable of returning the coconuts, softly, back to JJG's island.

Do I have to plan EVERYTHING ?!??

Please continue.

[HairyMaclairy]

can you guys f***ing tell me what about you're talking??  

Someone (I forgot who) made some post about there being no absolute truths or somesusch.  I object to this as I think it a cover for all sorts of bad behaviours like “alternative facts” so challenged on the basis that 2+2 always = 4. 

Of course I don’t know any higher order mathematics so was quickly proved wrong.  Now I am trying to understand why I was wrong. 

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

No christian women. Which is what matters.

What kind of retarded answer is that?

Any way. I am tired of you. Back to the ignore list.

Nope. Justify your position. Why are muslims better than christians according to you?

No one is better i’m raised a christian.... though later seen my mother supposed to be far far far jewish (also raised christian as her mom, but its a mother to daughter and so on going thing.....) but as a baptist christian and been raised one (not hard never really went to Church)
Only on the childshool ..... cause both my parents weren’t busy with anything of religion
But i have friends from al kinds of religion and i never think i’m better as any of them
I sometimes just think its pity those living the extreme religion lives cause they really mis so much in live
Land that Goes for all the religion peeps i can understand one believing in something, but don’t live the extreme lives cause nobody Ask to do that .....

the best religion is science, it explains everything with real evidence, it explains the differences with a logic that convinces people. religions speak of the relationship between human beings and god. science speaks of the relationships between human beings and their environment including nature.

Tautology.

But yes.

[Last of the V8s]

http://www.loper-os.org/?p=1913 “Finite Field Arithmetic.” Chapter 1: Genesis.
-for those who are a little further ahead.
-can talk to the author here http://logs.bvulpes.com/asciilifeform?d=2019-3-1 well on freenode irc #asciilifeform
-towards a sane RSA yay

[Gyrsur]

is Bitcoin done or are our expectations too high? do we need more patience?

[criptix]

Ok work with me here.  How do we achieve the assumption that numbers are a finite field?

Feel free to refer me to beginner level reading to save you typing it all out.

As for a "beginner level" introduction, I'm not really aware of any that isn't gritty rigorous Math. And in that case any would be as good as any other I suppose, since the definitions are always the same (except for perhaps the symbols used). If you feel like digging deeper I'm sure you'll find any number of resources on Google. All my notes and books for these topics are in non-English though, so I can't recommend you any reference here. But alas.


Assumptions are created out of more or less thin air. Generally based on past experiences (I'm not sure if we can arrive at any assumption without making references to previous ones, which is a problem in and of itself). It's also not exactly that numbers "are" a finite field, they can be depending on how many you have to play with. The numbers we usually use are not a finite field, you always have a unique "+1". However.


In the case of finite fields, if you want to go from the "human experience" side you could think of it like this.

If you think that infinity exists, then there's not much reason to argue here since you can just keep adding numbers and always get a unique new one, so 1+1 will always be 2 in that world.

If you however believe that infinity can't exist in reality, then the only conclusion is that any field of numbers must be finite, because you'll eventually run out. And in that world you eventually come full circle, otherwise you can't have a number field that functions in the way we understand numbers. It is the only way to formalize our natural understanding of numbers (that I am currently aware of).


As for what fields are, here's a very brief overview that leaves out a fair deal of the gritty parts that are necessary to formalize this. But this should hopefully give somewhat of a more formal intuition that you could compare against our natural intuition.

A field can be any set of numbers that satisfies a few properties. The most important ones for the topic we're having are the existence of a set of elements (or numbers), the existence of two operations (e.g. addition and multiplication), the existence of a neutral element for each operation, and the existence of an inverse element for each operation.

Let's take {0,1} as the set of numbers. And addition and multiplication as its two operations. The operation "o" (+ or *) now has to ensure that each element has a unique inverse element. So if you take any element X , there must be another element Y such that X o Y spits out the neutral element regarding "o". For addition this is 0 (you add 0, shit happens), for multiplication it's 1 (you multiply by 1, nothing happens). If you think about it, whenever you invert a number you get its neutral, 3 * 1/3 = 1, 3 + (-3) = 0.

If these properties are violated you can somehow show that the whole natural intuition of numbers just breaks down, but I can't think of a good example on the spot. Been too long since I've done anything in this area.


In the usual fields the inverse element would just be -X for addition and 1/x for multiplication. In this finite field you can't do this, because "1/1" clearly does not exist as neither does an element called "-1".

However, with the circular arrangement you can quickly see that:

0+0 = 0
1+1 = 0

0*1 = 0
1*0 = 0
1*1 = 1

Hence, each element has an inverse regarding multiplication and addition, and our intuition still works. This way to look at it satisfies the requirements of a field. It just so happens to be finite. This curiously doesn't work for any set of numbers either, the number of elements has to be infinite, a prime, or a prime power.
If you want to get technical, then "2" in the way we normally understand it won't give you "2+2 = 0", but there is an abstract field that extends {0,1} in a way such that the elements that you could "call '2'" would satisfy 2+2 = 0. You can easily get 2+3=0 for {0,1,2,3,4} with the usual addition though (check this yourself if you'd like as an exercise).


As for 'why' this works, I doubt anybody knows. Emergent properties?

Essentially, fields are merely a formalization of the way in which we naturally came to use numbers based on our experience of reality. And the formalization naturally gives rise to both finite and infinite fields. There are also weird fields that have polynomials as their "numbers" and where "1" is suddenly a polynomial (the constant polynomial 1). But you would never expect either of these by not carefully thinking about the fundamentals, what you already know, the implications of either, or what other ways you could view what you already know in.

These weird mysteries are why I'm against quickly rushing to conclusions on any subject and prefer looking for as many explanations and vantage points as I am currently capable of. The universe has a way to always screw us when we think we "know", and to reward us with new exciting experiences if we remain open.

Quoting this so I don’t lose it. Am working on this as well.  

double quote for safety reasons.

can you guys f***ing tell me what about you're talking??  

EDIT: some CS stuff from your days in university? Formal Language Theory?

Discrete mathematics, second or third semester of computer science

[Gyrsur]

can you guys f***ing tell me what about you're talking??  

Someone (I forgot who) made some post about there being no absolute truths or somesusch.  I object to this as I think it a cover for all sorts of bad behaviours like “alternative facts” so challenged on the basis that 2+2 always = 4.  

Of course I don’t know any higher order mathematics so was quickly proved wrong.  Now I am trying to understand why I was wrong.  

thanks! you mean approach of Mathematical proof?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

EDIT:

Discrete mathematics, second or third semester of computer science

thanks!

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

</hyperbolic nonsense>

You, good sir or madam, are a liar. I never said any such thing.

Sounded like it though to be honest.

I believe I can see where you're coming from, and can see some sense in it if I'm correct. But even then, your method of delivery probably fuels the fire more than it helps put it out.


If Muslims publicly spoke out against the problematic aspects of Islam and terrorism and publicly sought reform on a global scale, would you redact or amend your statement that Muslims are not innocent?

[bitserve]

is Bitcoin done or are our expectations too high? do we need more patience?

Bitcoin is surely NOT done. Our expectations are probably too high... but that depends on individual expectations. For sure we need more patience.

[Last of the V8s]

[Gyrsur]

is Bitcoin done or are our expectations too high? do we need more patience?

Bitcoin is surely NOT done. Our expectations are probably too high... but that depends on individual expectations. For sure we need more patience.

you're probably right. I remember my expectation in 2015/16 was to see the break of 10k mark at the earliest in 2020. and then... BitFinex and Tether in 2017...

[Ibian]

</hyperbolic nonsense>

You, good sir or madam, are a liar. I never said any such thing.

Sounded like it though to be honest.

I believe I can see where you're coming from, and can see some sense in it if I'm correct. But even then, your method of delivery probably fuels the fire more than it helps put it out.


If Muslims publicly spoke out against the problematic aspects of Islam and terrorism and publicly sought reform on a global scale, would you redact or amend your statement that Muslims are not innocent?

Sure, to people who project their own dark sides a lot. Which is again a primarily low-amygdala trait, or leftie trait. You'll notice you and I didn't get in a spat over it, for example?

My delivery is intentional. People get all kinds of honest when they get riled up. Quickly identifies who is worth my time.

Muslims as a whole will not do that. They would no longer be Muslim. It goes directly against the core of their faith.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Our awkward bastard step children ltc and eth are both up well over 5% today..can we and perhaps a better question, should we be matching them? Breaking above 4.2k would be a 5% gain for btc today. Also of note is that there hasent been but a small closeout of shorts.

You have provided an exacting set of background facts that should justify a decent BTC shorts-a-squeezing.. let's say, at least to $4,500, just to siphon them out even though $4,900-ish would be nicer to make it an even-Steven $1k upwards movement....

BTC is like USA among other crypto now.

It is a lot bigger than others so it is way harder to move it upwards or downwards.

A small shitty country can grow %10+ in a year and that still wouldn't make them happy and on the other hand, when USA grows %3 in a year they celebrate it for days.

Shitcoins are like those are small countries.

It is probably too late but I wish I bought more LTC While it was $30.

If you do you may want to throw <0.5 of your 5 BTC at shitcoin projects. Do thorough research and make sure to dump on the way up though. They are generally hit and run in the short to medium term and only few will prosper in the long run.
But opportunities are abundant and will remain to be so for a while. Just don't get greedy and use too many of your hard earned BTC or you'll fuck yourself over. 10% is a solid upper limit that will neither hurt you substantially nor produce so little return that it'd be a waste of time.
Also gets you to study the space more, and I have no doubt that shitcoins will be the new fundraising method for entrepreneurs as the space matures.

[BTCMILLIONAIRE]

Can this child get a bann? He is telling racis things and still he can speak on this forum..

It's called freedom of speech. If you want to solve problems you need to be able to learn about them, and if he is a problem to you then you have nothing to gain by muting him.

[Ibian]

Can this child get a bann? He is telling racis things and still he can speak on this forum..

It's called freedom of speech. If you want to solve problems you need to be able to learn about them, and if he is a problem to you then you have nothing to gain by muting him.

It'd make him feel better. For a very short time. Then he goes on search of someone else to get banned.

It's just a chase for a dopamine fix. Political power is more addictive than cocaine, even on such a small scale, that's why they do it. But otherwise solid advice there.