# Site Review Request - Page 2

Threaded View
•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on

## Re: Site Review Request

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:41:23 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

I wasn't proving anything. I was illustrating dorayme's point.

Dorayme, I believe, meant "there is no valid argument in favor of a
logically deducible unique next term after 2, 4, 8, 16." I agree. I agree
as well that, whatever you like admits a whole slew of valid arguments in
favor of its being a next term. So?

Easy. Consider whether there is a polynomial f with values f(1)=2, f(2)=4,
f(3)=8, f(4)=16, and f(5)=a, where a is any particular number you happen to
fancy. An easy matrix theory argument (accessible to any linear algebra
student) shows that, while there is exactly *one* such polynomial among
polynomials of degree 4, there are infinitely many such polynomials of
degree 5 already -- one for each choice of value for f(6) :-) . And if you
allow polynomials of still higher degree, you can get more continuations
than you can shake a stick at :-) .

Please define "completely arbitrary."

I allowed nothing of the sort. Mixing me up with someone else? who proposed
throwing in further sequence-terms 2^(-n) to go along with the terms 2^n?
Don't. And try not to impute unintended Burnside/Karass/Magnus/Solitar
significance to the term "group" when that was merely being used in a
simple, garden-variety, "collective noun" sort of way :-) . Thanks.

You'd dare be wrong, then :-) .

... and to ciwah, where dorayme can see it without joining a new NG.

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

## Re: Site Review Request

...

I don't think Thomas understands the original proposition.

It is really quite a deeper issue to do with the whole notion of
empirical data *always* falling short of a universal rule or theory.
You cannot *deduce* that all swans are white because you have seen
lots of white swans. You can guess. You can believe. You can make some
probability judgements (maybe). But you cannot deduce.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... seems to follow the rule a(n)=n where a(n) is the
number at the nth place in the series. But there are lots of other
formulae that agree that the first five places are taken up as they
are but predict quite a different number to 6.

Given finite data, you cannot logically exclude the negation of any
given answer. When all this is cast with number series examples, it is
only *superficially* mathematical. It is not really about maths or
something peculiar to maths. It is fun to show a believer who thinks
he has *the* pattern that there are other patterns that would cover
the known data, you can even dress all this up in complicated
mathematical jargon and formulas... but in the end it is not a
mathematical issue.

Here is an analogy: Sudoku usually uses symbols 0-9 but it does not
have to, you can use letters or animal icons, the relevant thing is 9
different things for each row/column/box. It is not really a
mathematical game. The point about deduction from finite data is not
really about maths, maths just falls into line of a deeper general
fact about general reasoning and science.

Thank you.

--
dorayme

## Re: Site Review Request

dorayme wrote:

Your logic is flawed as you are trying to refute something nobody claimed.
The same it is wrong to say that there is only one possibility – which
nobody did –, the same it is wrong to say that there is no valid argument
for any such possibility.  Yes, there *is*.

You are thanking someone for their continuing network abuse.  But then
again, what to expect from someone who does not even show the courtesy or
courage to stand by their statements – and nonsense – with their real name?

F'up2 sci.math where it belongs – logic is, after all, a branch of
mathematics, too.  Usenet is organized into groups of topics;
_not_ groups of people.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

## Re: Site Review Request

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:19:54 +1100, dorayme wrote:

His response to the contrary notwithstanding, I believe you're right.

Indeed: my principle of "least action" would have that sequence going so:

: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, ..., 5, ... .

(It took a while to reach the desired target "5", but now that I'm there
I'm never going to abandon it :-) .) But there are infinitely many other
equally plausible continuations, not all of which I'd have the
length-of-life to be able to describe to you ever.

Quite so.

Right. Sudoku is a purely combinatorial problem, like Go.

You're welcome, it should go without saying :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

## Re: Site Review Request

dorayme wrote:

When I see those numbers, I always think 31.

<https://www.google.se/search?q=2+4+8+16+31

/Nisse

## Re: Site Review Request

That link provides garbage results. Putting "2+4+8+16+31" (with quotes)
in the search box provided links that looked considerably more relevant.

Looks like the link should be:
<https://www.google.ca/search?q ="2%2B4%2B8%2B16%2B31">

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense!

## Re: Site Review Request

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:33:57 -0500, David Stone wrote:

My older (but latest) Safari in Win Vista got perfectly fine results.
Evidently choice of browser may make a difference. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

## Re: Site Review Request

In article

Nice example:

<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CircleDivisionbyChords.html

--
dorayme

## Re: Site Review Request

Molly Mockford wrote:

Hi Adrienne, sorry but I find these captcha schemes both very annoying
and ineffective. I looked into it when my sites stated to get hit with
comment spambots and after a bit of research I took a different tack.

I use a honeypot strategy: Put a field on your form that is irresistible
for bots like "username", "userid", etc. Then in the stylessheet set
that field to "display: none". Humans really do not disable stylesheets
so only bots will see the field. Now in your validation all you have to
do in here in pseudo-code:

If post field "userid" exists then
do nothing it is a bot
else
process "human" generated input

This is totally transparent to the user and is effective. For mine in
the "do nothing" condition I generate a log. I can confirm I have had
not one false positive and it has been 100% effective. Interesting that
the bots are coming from a few IPs (Ukraine and Russian Federation) and
they always use an ALO email address.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

## Re: Site Review Request

Jonathan, thank you so much, that is exactly what I'm going to do. I hate
CAPTCHAs as well.

--
Adrienne Boswell
Arbpen Web Site Design Services - http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/
The Good Plate - Fresh Gourmet Recipes - http://the-good-plate.com/
Please respond to the group so others can share

## Re: Site Review Request

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

So do I so much so was was very very reluctant to employ one. Other
schemes seemed too complicated, used JavaScript and other things that
seems too likely to block real people. What I liked about this was it
was so simple and after over a year of logging I can confirm 100%
effective. The serverside can be as simple as a one liner PHP

if(array_key_exists('userid', \$_REQUEST) and \$_REQUEST['userid'] != '')
header('Location: http://' . \$_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] .  '/twilightzone.html');

I do a bit more with some logging because I want to keep tabs on the
little buggers.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

## Re: Site Review Request

Interesting. Noted.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

## Re: Site Review Request

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:19:12 -0500, "Jonathan N. Little"

Provided, of course, that your page doesn't have a polka-dot
background that makes it impossible to read with stylesheets enabled.

(Real example -- recently corrected by (I gather) a new webmaster.)

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

## Re: Site Review Request

Joy Beeson wrote:

> (Real example -- recently corrected by (I gather) a new webmaster.)
>

Or red text on black busy background. Yes I would avoid offering a user
a "desire" to disable your stylesheet. And other methods I have found
have more chances to fail.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

## Re: Site Review Request

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:20:03 -0400, Joy Beeson wrote:

Agreed. *This* human would disable not stylesheets but the offending page
-- by browsing elsewhere instead :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

## Re: Site Review Request

#1 Bots
Crawl.66.*.*.*.googlebot.com

## Re: Site Review Request

Hot-Text wrote:

Crawling and indexing is not the problem. Googlebot does not send forms.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

## Re: Site Review Request

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Actually, it kind of does.  I periodically get a contact form on one of
my sites sent to me.  It looks like this:

----------------------------
To: xxxxx@guitarsnotguns.org
From: FormMail@guitarsnotguns.org

This is a test alert message
Loaded language is English (builtin)
PHP version is 5.3.27
FormMail version is 8.36
Server type: non-Windows

DOCUMENT_ROOT: /home/ed_mullen/guitarsnotguns.org
SCRIPT_FILENAME: /home/ed_mullen/guitarsnotguns.org/contactform_script.php
PATH_TRANSLATED: -not set-
REAL_DOCUMENT_ROOT: /home/ed_mullen/guitarsnotguns.org

SERVER_NAME was guitarsnotguns.org
REQUEST_URI was /contactform_script.php?testalert=1

User IP address was 66.249.64.33
User agent was Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1;
+http://www.google.com/bot.html)
--------------------

I use the FormMail PHP script

<http://www.tectite.com/formmailpage.php?WWWTECTITE=eavdpic8v9p568olv6r3dm7rf4

which has a function for testing a form (see the REQUEST_URI above).
How Googlebot ever figured that out I don't know.  I posted a message on
Tectite's forum asking if anyone else is seeing this. No replies yet.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
All that glitters has a high refractive index.

## Re: Site Review Request

Ed Mullen wrote:

Hmmmm, I downloaded and reviewed briefly then "improved" version of
FormMail. Well a few things would deter me from ever using.

Almost 14000 lines of code, yes it is well commented but sheeze Louise
that is a lot just to simply send an email securely!

Also it still employs HTML hidden fields for info that I would never do,
e.g. destination addresses...I keep that all serverside and not client
accessible.

It appears that would process GET which may be how you are getting
Googlebot. I use the universal \$_REQUEST (POST, GET & COOKIE) *only* for
detecting the spamming bots. Yes you can programmaticly create a POST
session, and I have and do for some scripts, but GET is much easier and
hackers are by nature lazy and go for the lower hanging fruit. And an
email form SHOULD NOT be a GET request but properly a POST anyway.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

## Re: Site Review Request

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Yep, it is big but that doesn't seem to be any kind of speed problem. I
use the form on multiple sites and the sending seems instantaneous.  The
email is received in seconds.

I don't put the recipients' emails in-the-clear in the form.  I use a
text file placed in a secure folder on the server. You specify an alias
(for lack of a better term) and its associated email address.  In the
form the alias is used, not the address.

The contact form does use POST. Actually, the URL:

http://guitarsnotguns.org/contactform_script.php?testalert=1

is what I would send to test if the script is working.  That's exactly
what Googlebot sent, and the result is the email I got.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H.M. Warner, Warner
Brothers, 1927.