Profile

Cover photo
Carl Hewitt
Works at iRobust
Attends Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lives in Silicon Valley
195 followers|138,970 views
AboutPosts

Stream

 
Backdoors are Cyberterrorism

If the US adopts mandatory backdoors, then each country will have its own backdoors and massive pervasive surveillance will become the norm.  Backdoors are CyberTerrorism weapons  that can be used to control citizens' Internet of Things and steal their sensitive information.

  #DataCenterism #DataTotalism #DataLocalism #CyberCenterism #CyberTotalism #CyberLocalism  #CyberThing   #OwnYourCyberThings   #StandardIoT   #surveillance #NewAmCyber #backdoor  #CyberTerrorism #BanBackdoors   #InconsistencyRobustness #RAMencryption #EveryWordTagged   #cybersecurity
1
 
Mathematics self proves its own consistency

The recently developed self-proof of consistency (above) shows that the current common understanding that Gödel   #Godel #Goedel  “Mathematics cannot prove its own consistency, if it is consistent” is inaccurate.[1]

[1] Four years after Gödel published his results for Principia Mathematica, [Church 1935, Turing 1936] published the first valid proof that the mathematical theory Principia is inferentially undecidable #IncompletenessTheorem (i.e. there is a proposition Ψ such that ⊬Ψ and ⊬¬Ψ) because provability in Principia is computationally undecidable (provided that the theory Principia is consistent).
Abstract: Inconsistency Robustness is performance of information systems with pervasively inconsistent information. Inconsistency Robustness of the community of professional mathematicians is their performance repeatedly repairing contradictions over the centuries.
2

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
One computer is no Computer!

Theorem.  A nondeterministic Turing Machine is not  computationally universal in the sense that there are computations that it cannot perform.  (This does not mean that there are functions on the integers that it cannot compute.)

See http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1459
Abstract: The Actor model is a mathematical theory that treats "Actors" as the universal primitives of concurrent digital computation. The model has been used both as a framework for a theoretical understanding of concurrency, and as the theoretical basis for several practical implementations of ...
2

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
Dear Dana,
 
Thanks for the report on your Vienna talk.
 
For the purposes of Computer Science, Gödel's work is now technically obsolete although it was quite innovative when done more than eight decades ago.  And the currently accepted interpretation of his second incompleteness result is inaccurate. (See http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4852)
 
Of course, EVER BIGGER DATA is going to be important.  However, accumulating EVER BIGGER DATA is just a tool to increase scientific understanding that is part of the fundamental paradigm shift to Inconsistency Robustness for processing pervasively inconsistent information. In this regard, you might be interested in the video of an IR'11 presentation at the following link:  Scalable Inconsistency Robust Information Systems 

Again, thanks for an interesting overview of the field.
 
Cheers,
Carl
3

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
IR’14 Panel on “Inconsistency Robustness in Cyberspace Security and Privacy” http://ir14.org

This panel will discuss current issues in cyberspace security and privacy grounded in an ongoing saga including the following hypotheses about the future and recent events:
 · Computation and storage on phones, personal computers, etc. can be made more trustworthy (e.g., secure, reliable, robust, and resilient) than on large datacenters (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, NSA, etc.).  Mass cyberspace surveillance can be made uneconomical by greater endpoint security for phones, personal computers, etc.
 · Public key encryption communication will become ubiquitous.  Trans-national directories will be created to enable authentication of public keys. NSA has targeted for surveillance parties communicating using encryption (with keys not available to NSA) and stored their communications forever.
 · Criminals (including in government) should be brought to justice.
 · Law enforcement will increasingly rely on cell tower tracking, automobile tracking, ubiquitous video tracking (including drones) using facial recognition in public places.
 · Surveillance and remote attacks via the Internet are almost universal, whether by nation states, corporations, or others. Whistleblowers are persecuted everywhere. Reporters who refuse to reveal their sources are being jailed. Journalists and publishers have been subject to government surveillance in their purely investigative and reporting activities.
 · In US, leakers to the press have been dealt long prison sentences based on the justification that leaking to the press is espionage for a foreign power. These leakers have not been allowed to raise whistleblower defenses at their trials.
 · In US, the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land.    
 · US companies face diminished foreign business prospects because US claims jurisdiction (in secret using gag orders) over foreign operations of US companies. CEOs of major tech companies have complained loudly about how NSA surveillance has been ruining their business. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently called the US a “threat” to the Internet, and Google Board Chair Eric Schmidt called some of the NSA tactics “outrageous” and potentially “illegal”. Governments can issue (unexplained) gag orders to Internet companies that they surrender their encryption keys and any other data they possess both domestically and in other countries. “It is not blowing over,” said Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith, adding “In June of 2014, it is clear it is getting worse, not better.”
 · Governments are preparing military offensive and defensive forces for devastating massive cyberwar attacks that can be delivered without prior detection.  Offensive retaliation is often challenged by not being certain of the identity of attacker(s). Greater endpoint security could mitigate the dangers of such attacks.
 · Al Gore proclaimed that the Internet is a “stalker economy.” Almost all consumers have Internet services (e.g. Internet search, email, etc.) paid by exploiting (and even selling) their personal information and attention. Unlike credit information, personal information held by Internet service companies does not have to be revealed to consumers. In “Why we fear Google”, Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner recently declared,
“Nobody knows as much about its [users] as Google. Even private or business emails are read by Gmail [arbitrary server programs without legal restriction]. You [Eric Schmidt] yourself said in 2010: ‘We [Google] know where you [Google users] are [and] where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about.’ Are users happy with the fact that this information ... [can] end up in the hands of [government] intelligence services ...?”
 · Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO WPP (the world’s largest advertising company) recently declared:
“People understate the importance of Snowden and NSA.  [They] underestimate the impact on consumers.

We have been removing third-party networks for our sites, those ads are also data-gathering mechanisms. We want to be more respectful of privacy and also want to monetise our audiences our way. Being more focused on privacy is not bad for business, it can be good.”
 
What precise contradictions (including goals, norms, and values) are contained in the above information?  How can they be rigorously stated? (A very long-term goal is for computer systems to have a formal understanding of these contradictions.)
 
Please join us for an exciting discussion.
4
1
Marius Buliga's profile photo

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
The list moderator censored the following post.

To: Foundations of Mathematics<fom@cs.nyu.edu>

Dear Monroe,
 
In Computer Science, we need very strong foundations for mathematics so that our computer systems are not handicapped.  Consequently, having the Use Theorem rule is highly valuable. For example, the Use Theorem rule is essential to Natural Deduction and is used in many mathematical proofs including the proof of consistency of mathematics.  We would have inconsistency if Gödel’s result held that mathematics cannot prove its own consistency if it is consistent. It is important not to have inconsistencies in mathematical foundations of Computer Science because they represent security vulnerabilities.
 
Of course, since there are uncountably many propositions (e.g. one for each real number), it is not possible to code them using natural numbers.
 
Large cardinals are not fundamental to Computer Science and consequently theories of large cardinals do not belong in the mathematical foundations of Computer Science.  On the other hand, being able to reason about theories is of fundamental importance.  The existence of nonstandard models of first-order Peano axioms (with infinite numbers) represents a severe defect for using these axioms in the mathematical foundations of Computer Science.
 
Cheers,
Carl
 
PS.  I have attached the article with the above results that will be presented at IR’14.
 
From: Monroe Eskew [mailto:meskew@math.uci.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 11:50
To: Carl Hewitt
Subject: Re: [FOM] Panel on "Inconsistency Robustness in Foundations of Mathematics" at IR'14 (http://ir14.org)
 
Dear Carl,
 
I remember perplexing myself with a similar argument during my first quarter in grad school.  The resolution is that the “Use Theorem” rule as you call it is not valid in the kinds of systems to which Godel’s theorem applies.  In a first-order system, we refer to propositions indirectly by coding them as natural numbers.  The faithfulness of the coding to its intended meaning may fail in nonstandard models.  This is of course a meta-statement and cannot be expressed within the first-order system.  Godel’s argument generates many concrete examples of statements P such that the statement, “There is x coding a proof of #P” does not imply P modulo the axioms.  
 
If \Phi(x) is the formula for there is no proof of sentence x in PA, and \sigma is a sentence is given by the fixed point lemma, so that PA proves "\sigma iff \Phi(#\sigma)", then PA does not prove “If #\sigma is provable then \sigma.”
 
If you think PA is a bad example because it is weak, note that Godel’s theorem applies to very strong systems such as ZFC + large cardinals.  You can do a lot of math there, some would say all.
 
Monroe
2

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
The list moderator censored the following post.

To: Foundations of Mathematics<fom@cs.nyu.edu>

Dear Marcin,
 
Thanks for your remark and your question.
 
I agree that Gödel’s proof has been very well checked for correct reasoning.  However, things could still go wrong:
      1)  Gödel’s proof makes assumptions that are undesirable for Computer Science.  For example, the assumption that propositions are countable is inconsistent with there being a distinct proposition for each real number such that the proposition holds for only that number.
       2) Gödel’s proof makes assumptions that result in contradiction. For example, the proof assumes the existence of self-referential sentences constructed using fixed points on an untyped grammar for mathematical sentences. Simply checking the proof for correctness will not reveal a contradiction in the assumptions.
       3) There is a simple proof of the consistency of mathematics which contradicts the thrust of Gödel’s original result that powerful systems like Principia Mathematica cannot prove their own consistency.
 
The IR'14 conference paper maintains all three of the above do in fact hold.
 
With respect to your question, see page 32 of the following:
              Morris Kline. Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times Oxford University Press, 1990.
 
Cheers,
Carl
 
-----Original Message---
From: fom-bounces@cs.nyu.edu[mailto:fom-bounces@cs.nyu.edu] On Behalf Of Marcin Mostowski
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 15:55
To: Foundations of Mathematics
Subject: Re: [FOM] Panel on "Inconsistency Robustness in Foundations of Mathematics" at IR'14 (http://ir14.org)
 
Dear all,
 
I have two things related to the message by Carl Hewitt, one remark and a question.
 
Remark:
 
You write: "Was Wittgenstein after all correct that Gödel’s proof is erroneous because inconsistency results from allowing self-referential sentences constructed using fixed points for an untyped grammar of mathematical sentences?"
 
You have two isomorphic reasonings. One about numbers and one rather logical. The first one was very well checked and we have very good reasons to accept it as a correct reasoning. The claim that the second one is incorrect seems to be a simple mistake. I do not see any use of discussing the issue.
 
Question:
 
You write: "Perhaps the first foundational crises was due to Hippasus “for having produced an element in the universe which denied the…doctrine that all phenomena in the universe can be reduced to whole numbers and their ratios.” Legend has it because he wouldn’t recant, Hippasus was literally thrown overboard to drown by his fellow Pythagoreans."
 
Have you any good historical reference to the story? I agree that it was one of crucial points in our intellectual history.
 
Marcin Mostowski
 
 
_____________________________________________
FOM mailing list
FOM@cs.nyu.edu
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
2
Have them in circles
195 people
Luis Souto Graña (spectrumgomas)'s profile photo
Guillermo R. Simari's profile photo
Ihab Awad's profile photo
Dexter Pratt's profile photo
Henry Lieberman's profile photo
English Expert's profile photo
Gary Girondin's profile photo
Vojimir Golem's profile photo
Chris Anderson's profile photo
 
Silicon Valley is caught between a rock and a hard place :-( Please see attached link. #NewAmCyber #backdoor #BanBackdoors   #surveillance
PS: Translation for those whose German is rusty:
       THE WORLD ORDER: How Silicon Valley controls our future
1

Carl Hewitt

Math Questions  - 
 
Does Mathematics self prove its own consistency?

Please see the following:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3330
Abstract: Inconsistency Robustness is performance of information systems with pervasively inconsistent information. Inconsistency Robustness of the community of professional mathematicians is their performance repeatedly repairing contradictions over the centuries.
5

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
See link for retrospective on extremely successful symposium.
3
1
Marius Buliga's profile photo

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
A Wikipedia Administrator claims that I am not a mathematician furthermore insinuates that I am "Bozo the clown."

See link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACarl_Hewitt&action=historysubmit&diff=616488782&oldid=615459787
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical ...
2

Carl Hewitt

Shared publicly  - 
 
My interview at 40th anniversary of TCP/IP.
7
3
Kwabena Aning's profile photoHarold Giménez's profile photo
People
Have them in circles
195 people
Luis Souto Graña (spectrumgomas)'s profile photo
Guillermo R. Simari's profile photo
Ihab Awad's profile photo
Dexter Pratt's profile photo
Henry Lieberman's profile photo
English Expert's profile photo
Gary Girondin's profile photo
Vojimir Golem's profile photo
Chris Anderson's profile photo
Work
Employment
  • iRobust
    Board Chair, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Silicon Valley
Links
Links
Story
Education
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    present
Basic Information
Gender
Decline to State