I have no doubt, given the current leadership in Newton, that a recreational pot shop will open within walking distance of my home. If it does, my life will change for the worse. Given the cash nature of pot shops and the fact that recreational drugs attract unsavory individuals, I expect my neighborhood to become less safe. As a result, I will be forced to drive across the street to the supermarket, instead of walking, for fear of getting caught in the middle of a crime in progress. I will also have to give up riding my bicycle, for fear of “high” drivers in my neighborhood. In addition, I will give up using public transportation since it is difficult to park at the T station and it will no longer be safe to walk there.

Despite these changes to my daily life, there is no guarantee that I won’t be harmed in some way by dangerous activities that are brought into my neighborhood by commercializing marijuana. And, the same can be said of my neighbors, as well as the many children who attend the three private schools which are located within walking distance of the shopping area where the pot shop is likely to be located.

What we need is new leadership in Newton. We must elect candidates who see Newton as someone’s “home,” not as a place to make money or as a place to apply Liberal agendas at the expense of everyone who is not wealthy or who happens to be a moderate or a conservative.

We should not give up on Newton politics. If we do, life in Newton will only get worse. As for myself, I am planning to oppose any attempts to open a pot shop in my neighborhood, and I will actively campaign against the Newton City Council incumbents who played a role in rigging the election to make it impossible for Newton residents to opt out from becoming the Premier Suburban Marijuana Shopping Destination for the Commercial Marijuana Industry.

]]>At least for fragments of arithmetic, a more explicit dividing line between weak and strong systems has been used (in the cited chapter 2 http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~sbuss/ResearchWeb/handbookII/): “The line between strong and weak fragments is somewhat arbitrarily drawn between those theories which can prove the arithmetized version of the cut-elimination theorem and those which cannot; in practice, this is equivalent to whether the theory can prove that the superexponential function is total.”

According to this dividing line, Friedman’s exponential function arithmetic (EFA) is a weak fragment of arithmetic. But if the question is whether independence results for P != NP can be proved, then EFA feels like a really interesting candidate, precisely because it cannot prove cut-elimination. It would cast an interesting light on the role of higher-order reasoning.

Of course, it is unrealistic to hope to demonstrate that “P!=NP cannot be proven in EFA”. But if you believe P=NP, then also EXP=NEXP, …, 3EXP=N3EXP, … follows. So maybe it is less unrealistic to hope to demonstrate that “3EXP!=N3EXP cannot be proven in EFA”, or at least that there is some K for which it is possible to demonstrate that “KEXP!=NKEXP cannot be proven in EFA”…

]]>otherwise, a general text on proof complexity, I recommend, is Krajicek’s latest book: https://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~krajicek/prf2.pdf

]]>