CIA 2010 covert communication websites 2012 Internet Census icmp_ping by 
Ciro Santilli 37 Updated 2025-07-16
Ciro Santilli 37 Updated 2025-07-16Let's check relevancy of known hits:Output:
grep -e '208.254.40' -e '208.254.42' 208 | tee 208hits208.254.40.95 1355564700 unreachable
208.254.40.95 1355622300 unreachable
208.254.40.96 1334537100 alive, 36342
208.254.40.96 1335269700 alive, 17586
..
208.254.40.127 1355562900 alive, 35023
208.254.40.127 1355593500 alive, 59866
208.254.40.128 1334609100 unreachable
208.254.40.128 1334708100 alive from 208.254.32.214, 43358
208.254.40.128 1336596300 unreachableThe rest of 208 is mostly unreachable.
208.254.42.191 1335294900 unreachable
...
208.254.42.191 1344737700 unreachable
208.254.42.191 1345574700 Icmp Error: 0,ICMP Network Unreachable, from 63.111.123.26
208.254.42.191 1346166900 unreachable
...
208.254.42.191 1355665500 unreachable
208.254.42.192 1334625300 alive, 6672
...
208.254.42.192 1355658300 alive, 57412
208.254.42.193 1334677500 alive, 28985
208.254.42.193 1336524300 unreachable
208.254.42.193 1344447900 alive, 8934
208.254.42.193 1344613500 alive, 24037
208.254.42.193 1344806100 alive, 20410
208.254.42.193 1345162500 alive, 10177
...
208.254.42.223 1336590900 alive, 23284
...
208.254.42.223 1355555700 alive, 58841
208.254.42.224 1334607300 Icmp Type: 11,ICMP Time Exceeded, from 65.214.56.142
208.254.42.224 1334681100 Icmp Type: 11,ICMP Time Exceeded, from 65.214.56.142
208.254.42.224 1336563900 Icmp Type: 11,ICMP Time Exceeded, from 65.214.56.142
208.254.42.224 1344451500 Icmp Type: 11,ICMP Time Exceeded, from 65.214.56.138
208.254.42.224 1344566700 unreachable
208.254.42.224 1344762900 unreachablen=66
time awk '$3~/^alive,/ { print $1 }' $n | uniq -c | sed -r 's/^ +//;s/ /,/' | tee $n-up-uniq-cOK down to 45 MB, now we can work.
grep -e '66.45.179' -e '66.104.169' -e '66.104.173' -e '66.104.175' -e '66.175.106' '66-alive-uniq-c' | tee 66hitsThe proper precise definition of mathematics can be found at: Section "Formalization of mathematics".
The most beautiful things in mathematics are described at: Section "The beauty of mathematics".
Study Hilbert spaces desert dilemma meme
. Source. Applies to almost all of mathematics of course. But we don't care, do we!Ciro Santilli intends to move his beauty list here little by little: github.com/cirosantilli/mathematics/blob/master/beauty.md
The most beautiful things in mathematics are results that are:
- simple to state but hard to prove:
- Fermat's Last Theorem
- number of unknown rationality, e.g. is rational?
- transcendental number conjectures, e.g. is transcendental?
- basically any conjecture involving prime numbers:
- many combinatorial game questions, e.g.:
- surprising results: we had intuitive reasons to believe something as possible or not, but a theorem shatters that conviction and brings us on our knees, sometimes via pathological counter-examples. General surprise themes include:Lists:
- classification of potentially infinite sets like: compact manifolds, etc.
- problems that are more complicated in low dimensions than high like:
- generalized Poincaré conjectures. It is also fun to see how in many cases complexity peaks out at 4 dimensions.
- classification of regular polytopes
- unpredictable magic constants:
- why is the lowest dimension for an exotic sphere 7?
- why is 4 the largest degree of an equation with explicit solution? Abel-Ruffini theorem
- undecidable problems, especially simple to state ones:
- mortal matrix problem
- sharp frontiers between solvable and unsolvable are also cool:
- attempts at determining specific values of the Busy beaver function for Turing machines with a given number of states and symbols
- related to Diophantine equations:
- applications: make life easier and/or modeling some phenomena well, e.g. in physics. See also: explain how to make money with the lesson
Good lists of such problems Lists of mathematical problems.
Whenever Ciro Santilli learns a bit of mathematics, he always wonders to himself:Unfortunately, due to how man books are written, it is not really possible to reach insight without first doing a bit of memorization. The better the book, the more insight is spread out, and less you have to learn before reaching each insight.
Am I achieving insight, or am I just memorizing definitions?
One of the most beautiful things in mathematics are theorems of conjectures that are very simple to state and understand (e.g. for K-12, lower undergrad levels), but extremely hard to prove.
This is in contrast to conjectures in certain areas where you'd have to study for a few months just to precisely understand all the definitions and the interest of the problem statement.
Bibliography:
- mathoverflow.net/questions/75698/examples-of-seemingly-elementary-problems-that-are-hard-to-solve
- www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/klev7b/whats_your_favorite_easy_to_state_and_understand/
- mathoverflow.net/questions/42512/awfully-sophisticated-proof-for-simple-facts this one is for proofs for which simpler proofs exist
- math.stackexchange.com/questions/415365/it-looks-straightforward-but-actually-it-isnt this one is for "there is some reason it looks easy", whatever that means
Examples:
- classification of finite simple groups
- classification of regular polytopes
- classification of closed surfaces, and more generalized generalized Poincaré conjectures
- classification of associative real division algebras
- classification of finite fields
- classification of simple Lie groups
- classification of the wallpaper groups and the space groups
In three dimensions In position representation, we define it by using the gradient, and so we see that
Oh, and the dude who created the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptional_object Wikipedia page won an Oscar: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF_FLN-TmCY, Dan Piponi, aka
@sigfpe. Cool dude.Cool examples:
Ciro Santilli would like to fully understand the statements and motivations of each the problems!
Easy to understand the motivation:
- Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness is basically the only problem that is really easy to understand the statement and motivation :-)
- p versus NP problem
Hard to understand the motivation!
- Riemann hypothesis: a bunch of results on prime numbers, and therefore possible applications to cryptographyOf course, everything of interest has already been proved conditionally on it, and the likely "true" result will in itself not have any immediate applications.As is often the case, the only usefulness would be possible new ideas from the proof technique, and people being more willing to prove stuff based on it without the risk of the hypothesis being false.
- Yang-Mills existence and mass gap: this one has to do with finding/proving the existence of a more decent formalization of quantum field theory that does not resort to tricks like perturbation theory and effective field theory with a random cutoff valueThis is important because the best theory of light and electrons (and therefore chemistry and material science) that we have today, quantum electrodynamics, is a quantum field theory.
Nice result on Lebesgue measurable required for uniqueness.
Here is a more understandable description of the semi-satire that follows: math.stackexchange.com/questions/53969/what-does-formal-mean/3297537#3297537
You start with a very small list of:
- certain arbitrarily chosen initial strings, which mathematicians call "axioms"
- rules of how to obtain new strings from old strings, called "rules of inference" Every transformation rule is very simple, and can be verified by a computer.
Using those rules, you choose a target string that you want to reach, and then try to reach it. Before the target string is reached, mathematicians call it a "conjecture".
Since every step of the proof is very simple and can be verified by a computer automatically, the entire proof can also be automatically verified by a computer very easily.
Finding proofs however is undoubtedly an uncomputable problem.
Most mathematicians can't code or deal with the real world in general however, so they haven't created the obviously necessary: website front-end for a mathematical formal proof system.
The fact that Mathematics happens to be the best way to describe physics and that humans can use physical intuition heuristics to reach the NP-hard proofs of mathematics is one of the great miracles of the universe.
Once we have mathematics formally modelled, one of the coolest results is Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which states that for any reasonable proof system, there are necessarily theorems that cannot be proven neither true nor false starting from any given set of axioms: those theorems are independent from those axioms. Therefore, there are three possible outcomes for any hypothesis: true, false or independent!
Some famous theorems have even been proven to be independent of some famous axioms. One of the most notable is that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent from Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory! Such independence proofs rely on modelling the proof system inside another proof system, and forcing is one of the main techniques used for this.
The landscape of modern Mathematics comic by Abstruse Goose
. Source. This comic shows that Mathematics is one of the most diversified areas of useless human knowledge.Much of this section will be dumped at Section "Website front-end for a mathematical formal proof system" instead.
If Ciro Santilli ever becomes rich, he's going to solve this with: website front-end for a mathematical formal proof system, promise.
A more verbose description of this at: Section "Website front-end for a mathematical formal proof system".
Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project
Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
Intro to OurBigBook
. Source. We have two killer features:
- topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculusArticles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
- a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
- a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.
Figure 1. Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page. View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivativeVideo 2. OurBigBook Web topics demo. Source. - local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
- to OurBigBook.com to get awesome multi-user features like topics and likes
- as HTML files to a static website, which you can host yourself for free on many external providers like GitHub Pages, and remain in full control
Figure 3. Visual Studio Code extension installation.
Figure 4. Visual Studio Code extension tree navigation.
Figure 5. Web editor. You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally.Video 3. Edit locally and publish demo. Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension.Video 4. OurBigBook Visual Studio Code extension editing and navigation demo. Source. 
- Infinitely deep tables of contents:
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact