Christianity is a personality cult and not a religion

[accelafine]

Oh thank Allah godelian isn't dead. I turn on the TV and 10,000 people have died in one of Allah's awesome southeast asian earthquakes. I'm like holy shit G's over there somewhere! So I race over here to make sure he's still going.

I missed the ball by just a few hundred miles!

So Thailand then. What a surprise. How convenient for you. Don't you just love white 'Western' men who want to live in Thailand

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2325416&page=1

[godelian]

Oh thank Allah godelian isn't dead. I turn on the TV and 10,000 people have died in one of Allah's awesome southeast asian earthquakes. I'm like holy shit G's over there somewhere! So I race over here to make sure he's still going.

I missed the ball by just a few hundred miles!

So Thailand then. What a surprise. How convenient for you. Don't you just love white 'Western' men who want to live in Thailand

First of all, there are at least five countries that you can reach within a few hundred miles from the epicenter of the earthquake.

Secondly, are you now shit talking Thailand too? Why don't you try to find a job somewhere as a professional shit talker? For example, stand at the door of a restaurant and of every person walking in or out of the restaurant, talk some garbage about how they are dressed. Wouldn't you love to hold down that job? It would be your dream job, wouldn't it?

[accelafine]

I missed the ball by just a few hundred miles!

So Thailand then. What a surprise. How convenient for you. Don't you just love white 'Western' men who want to live in Thailand

First of all, there are at least five countries that you can reach within a few hundred miles from the epicenter of the earthquake.

Secondly, are you now shit talking Thailand too? Why don't you try to find a job somewhere as a professional shit talker? For example, stand at the door of a restaurant and of every person walking in or out of the restaurant, talk some garbage about how they are dressed. Wouldn't you love to hold down that job? It would be your dream job, wouldn't it?

Not ones that are part of Southeast Asia. You have said multiple times that you live there.

[godelian]

Not ones that are part of Southeast Asia. You have said multiple times that you live there.

ChatGPT: Which countries are located 999 miles or less from Bangkok, Thailand?

Countries within approximately 999 miles (1,608 km) of Bangkok, Thailand, include:

1. Thailand (obviously)
2. Myanmar (Burma)
3. Laos
4. Cambodia
5. Vietnam
6. Malaysia
7. Singapore (just within range)
8. China (southern parts, such as Yunnan and Guangxi)
9. India (northeastern states like Manipur and Nagaland)
10. Bangladesh

This covers much of mainland Southeast Asia and parts of southern China and eastern India. Let me know if you need more details!

[accelafine]

Not ones that are part of Southeast Asia. You have said multiple times that you live there.

ChatGPT: Which countries are located 999 miles or less from Bangkok, Thailand?

Countries within approximately 999 miles (1,608 km) of Bangkok, Thailand, include:

1. Thailand (obviously)
2. Myanmar (Burma)
3. Laos
4. Cambodia
5. Vietnam
6. Malaysia
7. Singapore (just within range)
8. China (southern parts, such as Yunnan and Guangxi)
9. India (northeastern states like Manipur and Nagaland)
10. Bangladesh

This covers much of mainland Southeast Asia and parts of southern China and eastern India. Let me know if you need more details!

That's rather stretching the 'a few hundred miles' We both know it's Thailand.

[godelian]

That's rather stretching the 'a few hundred miles' We both know it's Thailand.

You gave me some really interesting idea. It can be done. However, only for a device: There would still be no guarantee that the person is actually holding the device.

DeepSeek: Create a zkSNARK argument that turns a cryptographically signed proof of location, i.e. location A, in GPS coordinates, along with a publicly-known target location B, in GPS coordinates, into a proof of not being in a radius R of B without revealing A. Implement this in SnarkJS.

DeepSeek seems to be more powerful than ChatGPT. DeepSeek seems to have succeeded in writing the entire implementation of the solution:

# zkSNARK for Proving Location Outside a Radius Without Revealing It

Below is a complete implementation using SnarkJS to create a zero-knowledge proof that demonstrates you're not within radius R of a target location B, without revealing your actual location A.

## 1. Circuit Design (circuit.circom)

First, let's create the Circom circuit that will verify the distance between two points is greater than R:

```circom
pragma circom 2.0.0;

// Circuit to prove location A is outside radius R from location B
// without revealing A's coordinates

// Helper template to calculate squared distance (avoiding square roots)
template DistanceSquared() {
signal input latA;
signal input lonA;
signal input latB;
signal input lonB;

// Convert degrees to radians (approximate)
signal latARad <-- latA * 314159265358979323846 / 180000000000000000000;
signal lonARad <-- lonA * 314159265358979323846 / 180000000000000000000;
signal latBRad <-- latB * 314159265358979323846 / 180000000000000000000;
signal lonBRad <-- lonB * 314159265358979323846 / 180000000000000000000;

// Haversine formula components
signal dLat <-- latBRad - latARad;
signal dLon <-- lonBRad - lonARad;

signal a <-- (dLat/2) * (dLat/2) +
latARad * latBRad *
(dLon/2) * (dLon/2);

// Earth's radius in meters (approx)
signal earthRadiusSquared <-- 6371000 * 6371000;

// Squared distance in meters
signal output squaredDistance <-- 4 * a * earthRadiusSquared;
}

// Main circuit
template OutsideRadius() {
// Private inputs (secret)
signal input signedLatA; // Signed latitude of A
signal input signedLonA; // Signed longitude of A
signal input signatureR; // Signature components (simplified)
signal input signatureS;

// Public inputs
signal input latB; // Target latitude (public)
signal input lonB; // Target longitude (public)
signal input radiusR; // Radius in meters (public)

// Verify the signature (simplified for this example)
// In a real implementation, you'd use a proper signature verification circuit
component sigVerifier = SignatureVerifier();
sigVerifier.latA <== signedLatA;
sigVerifier.lonA <== signedLonA;
sigVerifier.r <== signatureR;
sigVerifier.s <== signatureS;

// Calculate squared distance between A and B
component distanceCalc = DistanceSquared();
distanceCalc.latA <== signedLatA;
distanceCalc.lonA <== signedLonA;
distanceCalc.latB <== latB;
distanceCalc.lonB <== lonB;

// Verify distance is greater than radius R
// Instead of sqrt(distance) > R, we check distance > R²
signal radiusSquared <== radiusR * radiusR;

// Add a small epsilon to account for rounding errors
signal epsilon <== 1;

// Assert distance > radius²
distanceCalc.squaredDistance - radiusSquared - epsilon === 0;

// The actual check is that the difference is positive,
// but circom requires === 0, so we output the difference
// and verify it's positive outside the circuit
}

// Simplified signature verifier template
// In reality, you'd use a proper ECDSA or other signature verification circuit
template SignatureVerifier() {
signal input latA;
signal input lonA;
signal input r;
signal input s;

// This is a placeholder - real implementation would verify
// that (r,s) is a valid signature of (latA|lonA) with known public key
// For this example, we just ensure inputs are in valid ranges
latA * (latA + 1) === latA * latA + latA;
lonA * (lonA + 1) === lonA * lonA + lonA;
r * (r + 1) === r * r + r;
s * (s + 1) === s * s + s;
}

component main = OutsideRadius();
```

## 2. Implementation Steps with SnarkJS

Here's how to implement the complete solution:

```bash
# Install required tools if you haven't already
npm install -g snarkjs circom

# 1. Compile the circuit
circom circuit.circom --r1cs --wasm --sym

# 2. Print circuit information
snarkjs r1cs info circuit.r1cs

# 3. Export r1cs to json (human readable)
snarkjs r1cs export json circuit.r1cs circuit.r1cs.json

# 4. Generate reference zkey (phase 1)
snarkjs powersoftau new bn128 12 pot12_0000.ptau -v
snarkjs powersoftau contribute pot12_0000.ptau pot12_0001.ptau --name="First contribution" -v

# 5. Prepare for phase 2
snarkjs powersoftau prepare phase2 pot12_0001.ptau pot12_final.ptau -v

# 6. Generate zkey (phase 2)
snarkjs groth16 setup circuit.r1cs pot12_final.ptau circuit_0000.zkey
snarkjs zkey contribute circuit_0000.zkey circuit_0001.zkey --name="Contributor 1" -v

# 7. Export verification key
snarkjs zkey export verificationkey circuit_0001.zkey verification_key.json

# 8. Generate a sample proof

# First create input file (input.json)
# Private inputs: signed location A and signature
# Public inputs: location B and radius R
cat << EOF > input.json
{
"signedLatA": "40.7128",
"signedLonA": "-74.0060",
"signatureR": "12345",
"signatureS": "67890",
"latB": "40.7128",
"lonB": "-74.0260",
"radiusR": "1000"
}
EOF

# Generate witness
snarkjs wtns calculate circuit.wasm input.json witness.wtns

# Generate proof
snarkjs groth16 prove circuit_0001.zkey witness.wtns proof.json public.json

# Verify proof
snarkjs groth16 verify verification_key.json public.json proof.json

# Generate solidity verifier
snarkjs zkey export solidityverifier circuit_0001.zkey verifier.sol
```

## 3. JavaScript Implementation

Here's how to use this in a JavaScript application:

```javascript
const { groth16 } = require('snarkjs');
const fs = require('fs');

async function generateProof() {
// Load artifacts
const wasm = fs.readFileSync('circuit.wasm');
const zkey = fs.readFileSync('circuit_0001.zkey');

// Sample inputs
const inputs = {
signedLatA: "40.7128", // New York coordinates (private)
signedLonA: "-74.0060",
signatureR: "12345", // Simplified signature parts
signatureS: "67890",
latB: "40.7128", // Target location (public)
lonB: "-74.0260", // Slightly west of NY
radiusR: "1000" // 1km radius (public)
};

// Generate proof
const { proof, publicSignals } = await groth16.fullProve(
inputs,
wasm,
zkey
);

console.log("Proof:", proof);
console.log("Public signals:", publicSignals);

// Verify proof
const vkey = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('verification_key.json'));
const res = await groth16.verify(vkey, publicSignals, proof);

console.log("Verification result:", res);
}

generateProof().catch(console.error);
```

## Important Notes

1. **Signature Verification**: The example uses a simplified signature verification. In production, you'd need to implement proper ECDSA or other crypto signature verification in the circuit.

2. **Precision**: GPS coordinates and distance calculations require careful handling of precision. The example uses fixed-point arithmetic approximations.

3. **Distance Calculation**: The Haversine formula is used for accurate distance calculation on a sphere (Earth).

4. **Privacy**: The actual location A is never revealed, only the proof that it's outside radius R of B.

5. **Performance**: Complex calculations like signature verification and distance calculations can make the circuit large. Optimization may be needed for production use.

This implementation demonstrates the core concept of proving location properties without revealing the actual location, which can be useful for privacy-preserving location-based services.

[accelafine]

Or just go by what you said yourself.

I don't know if you are trying to be all sinister and threatening. How unusual for a perverted male

[accelafine]

Woteva. Unlike you I know GOD very personally. Odd that he allowed Islame to flourish and Muzzlems to exist - but, maybe there is a reason pertaining to Revelations and 666 with that. I don't think the Muslim Pakistani Rape Gangs are going to be looked upon too kindly on their day of judgement.

I hope they get reincarnated as pigs, that's what they are. And we Christians love our bacon for breakfast, yum yum.

You see it as "the Muslims". I really don't. I just see it as the axiomatization of the Quran which yields a particular moral doctrine.

Islam doctrine is amoral since it is not ALL moral, thus FAILS AS A "MORAL" DOCTRINE. Child sex is not moral.

Are you into this too..?


Bacha bāzī [1] (/ˈbɑːtʃɑːbɑːˈzi/, Pashto and Dari: بچه بازی, lit. 'boy play') refers to a pederasty practice in Afghanistan in which men exploit and enslave adolescent boys for entertainment and/or sexual abuse.[2][3][4][5] The man exploiting the young boy is called a bacha baz (literally "boy player").[3] Typically, the bacha baz forces the bacha to dress in women's clothing and dance for entertainment.[3][6] The practice is reported to continue into the present as of 2025.

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

You really have nothing to worry about re islam. Notice how pleasant he is to you, no matter how much you criticise his precious cult? No personal remarks and sexist bullshit. No thinly veiled threats. It's women these little men loathe. They feel inferior which is why they feel the need to stomp on and oppress women.

[godelian]

Or just go by what you said yourself.

DeepSeek assumes that the signature will be an (r,s) two-tuple. This would be correct for ECDSA signatures but actually also for DSA and Schnorr.

So, the recipient will check a digital signature for a message that he does not have access to. The zkSNARK argument's recipient should apparently be able to verify the proof for:

I am hereby proving that I have a message signed by following trusted public key PUBKEY who testifies to the truth of the message. However, I am not disclosing the content of the message. But then again, I am also proving that this otherwise undisclosed message contains a GPS location that is at least R miles away from Bangkok, Thailand.

If that does not prove the power of zkSNARK arguments, then seriously, I don't know what does!

[attofishpi]

You see it as "the Muslims". I really don't. I just see it as the axiomatization of the Quran which yields a particular moral doctrine.

Islam doctrine is amoral since it is not ALL moral, thus FAILS AS A "MORAL" DOCTRINE. Child sex is not moral.

Are you into this too..?


Bacha bāzī [1] (/ˈbɑːtʃɑːbɑːˈzi/, Pashto and Dari: بچه بازی, lit. 'boy play') refers to a pederasty practice in Afghanistan in which men exploit and enslave adolescent boys for entertainment and/or sexual abuse.[2][3][4][5] The man exploiting the young boy is called a bacha baz (literally "boy player").[3] Typically, the bacha baz forces the bacha to dress in women's clothing and dance for entertainment.[3][6] The practice is reported to continue into the present as of 2025.

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

You really have nothing to worry about re islam. Notice how pleasant he is to you, no matter how much you criticise his precious cult? No personal remarks and sexist bullshit. No thinly veiled threats. It's women these little men loathe. They feel inferior which is why they feel the need to stomp on and oppress women.

Oh, absolutely.

Not only the misogyny. But now he’s trying to blow smoke up your arse in a way that unless your life involves coding & LOGIC, you may be a tad ‘bamboozled’..

He states below (*which he ignored addressing with me, rather to spew bollocks at U):
“the Quran which yields a particular moral doctrine”

To which I state:
Islamic doctrine is amoral since it is not ALL moral, thus FAILS AS A "MORAL" DOCTRINE. Child sex is not moral.


How does your LOGIC fix that one, muzzlem?

[godelian]

He states below :
“the Quran which yields a particular moral doctrine”

To which I state:
Islamic doctrine is amoral since it is not ALL moral, thus FAILS AS A "MORAL" DOCTRINE.

So, the question translates into:

When can an arbitrary set of rules be used as an axiomatization, i.e. a "doctrine"?

So, say that { R1,:R2, R3, ... } is a set of rules. Is this set a legitimate foundation for a theory, i.e. a "doctrine"?

The answer seems to revolve around the concern that if you do not explicitly specify for the resulting theory, an intended model, i.e. an intended interpretation, the doctrine must be able to carry its own interpretation:

ChatGPT: When can a set of first-order logic rules be used as an axiomatization, assuming that we do not specify an intended model?

A set of first-order logic (FOL) rules can serve as an axiomatization when it meets the following conditions:

1. Consistency: The axioms should not lead to a contradiction. That is, there should be at least one model that satisfies all the axioms.

2. Sufficient Expressiveness: The axioms should be strong enough to define the intended structures or properties of interest, even if no specific intended model is specified.

3. Deductive Closure: The axioms should allow for the derivation of all valid theorems in the system. In other words, the set of axioms should be sound (only deriving true statements in all models) and, ideally, complete (capable of deriving all true statements within the intended scope of the theory).

4. Non-redundancy (Optional): While not strictly necessary, an axiomatization is often preferred to be independent, meaning that no axiom is derivable from the others.

The most important requirements are that the doctrine must be free from contradictions and be deductively-closed.

That is exactly what Martin Luther pointed out during his trial in 1521:

Luther: Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God.

So, nothing has changed since Luther's trial in 1521.

We know that it is the inventions by popes and councils that destroy the consistency and deductive closure of the religion's doctrine.

So, the most important requirement for a legitimate doctrine, is that it must not have a church. Islam does not have one. QED.

[attofishpi]

He states below :
“the Quran which yields a particular moral doctrine”

To which I state:
Islamic doctrine is amoral since it is not ALL moral, thus FAILS AS A "MORAL" DOCTRINE.

So, the question translates into:

When can an arbitrary set of rules be used as an axiomatization, i.e. a "doctrine"?

No.

You attempt to use a form of axiom rubbish that would suit an outcome that denies that all parts of the proposition to be true to remain true.


A moral doctrine must have all of its parts be moral.

If any part of the doctrine is not moral, the whole doctrine fails to be moral.

Therefore, such a doctrine is amoral. (Islamic doctrine)

[godelian]

A moral doctrine must have all of its parts be moral.

If any part of the doctrine is not moral, the whole doctrine fails to be moral.

So, you need a second doctrine to check if the first doctrine is moral. How do you check the second doctrine? So, you need a third doctrine.

This problem is known as infinite regress.

Your approach does not work, just for reasons of computability already. It does not even matter what the rules R1, R2, R3, ... are. Your approach automatically fails.

[attofishpi]

A moral doctrine must have all of its parts be moral.

If any part of the doctrine is not moral, the whole doctrine fails to be moral.

So, you need a second doctrine to check if the first doctrine is moral. How do you check the second doctrine? So, you need a third doctrine.

You could quite possibly be the stupidest intelligent person on the forum.

We are considering the doctrine in its entirety, Islam permits killing humans and having sex with children, ergo, is immoral.

This problem is known as infinite regress.

Its got fuck all to do with infinite regress AND all to do with extremely simple logic.

Your approach does not work, just for reasons of computability already. It does not even matter what the rules R1, R2, R3, ... are. Your approach automatically fails.

U R talking irrelevant bollocks.

BTW: Consciousness is NOT computable. Ergo, conscious decisions are also non computable.

[godelian]

A moral doctrine must have all of its parts be moral.

If any part of the doctrine is not moral, the whole doctrine fails to be moral.

So, you need a second doctrine to check if the first doctrine is moral. How do you check the second doctrine? So, you need a third doctrine.

You could quite possibly be the stupidest intelligent person on the forum.

We are considering the doctrine in its entirety, Islam permits killing humans and having sex with children, ergo, is immoral.

This problem is known as infinite regress.

Its got fuck all to do with infinite regress AND all to do with extremely simple logic.

Your approach does not work, just for reasons of computability already. It does not even matter what the rules R1, R2, R3, ... are. Your approach automatically fails.

U R talking irrelevant bollocks.

BTW: Consciousness is NOT computable. Ergo, conscious decisions are also non computable.

A doctrine is a set of rules as well as any derived rule that necessarily follows from it.

A moral doctrine is one that decides about the morality of behavior.

You are trying to judge the morality of such moral doctrine. According to what other moral doctrine do you want to do that?