Saturday, March 18, 2017

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Mar 18 10:24PM +0200

On 18.03.2017 21:21, kushal bhattacharya wrote:
> lock_guard<mutex> lock_guard1(m2);
> std::find_if(msg_lists.begin(), msg_lists.end(),
> [&](std::pair<int, shared_ptr<msg_list>> msg_obj)mutable {
 
 
msg_lists does not look like a std::deque to me. Probably this is
std::map or something instead. Not that it would make much difference,
but so far you have been claiming it is a deque.
 
Locking seems OK, assuming that m2 is defined in the correct place.
 
One normally uses the return value of std::find_if() instead of doing
modifications on the fly. Currently your std::find_if() is not finding a
PUBREC item in the container if there is a matching PUBCOMP item present
before that, not sure if this is intended or not. Separating the find
and modification actions would clear that up.
 
Your usage of the std:: prefix seems very inconsistent. Suggesting to
use it all the time.
 
Could you show also the code parts which are *reading* the container,
together with the locking. Seeing the container and mutex declarations
and function signatures would not hurt either.
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Mar 18 05:30PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 2:51 PM, kushal bhattacharya wrote:
>> invalid. This will cause undefined results (including potential segfaults).
 
> hi,
> So what should I do in this case?
 
Fix your code. No one can tell you how to fix code you've never shared.
 
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Mar 18 10:32PM +0200

On 18.03.2017 21:39, kushal bhattacharya wrote:
> I am using eternal.september.org newsreader
 
eternal.september.org is a news server, not a news reader. And you are
not using it, your post is coming from groups.google.com.
jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring): Mar 18 09:30PM

> I am using eternal.september.org newsreader
 
Seems like you're new to the newsgroup stuff, we all were
once upon a time! Since you're posting via Google groups
you may think that newsgroups are just something like web
sites. But they aren't, the whole system of newasgroups
predates the WWW by many years.
 
What you see from Google groups is just kind of a "window"
into it (and a half-way broken one), translating from "real"
newsgroups to a web interface. But "under the hood" it's
something completely different! And 'eternal.september.org'
isn't another web front end, but a real newsservers (i.e. it
stores messages for others to read, and accepts messages
from you to be distributed to others all over the world).
 
In order to interact with a newsserver (i.e. to get and
read and post to newsgroups) you need to obtain a program
that "understands" how to news works, i.e. how to "talk"
to a newsserver. That's called a newsreader. (Like your
browser knows how to "talk" to webservers, so you could
call it a "webreader"). As you'll probably prefer some-
thing with a graphical user interface, but, prefering
text-only myself, I can' make any recommendations.
Others here will have better advice.
 
Once you have it installed you will have to tell it where
to get messages from (and where to send your own ones to).
That's where 'eternal.september.org' comes in - that's
one of the (free) newsservers you can use. And they
carry thousands of newsgroups, so you will have to pick
the ones you're interested in. Then you're ready to go;-)
 
Regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de
\__________________________ http://toerring.de
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:29PM -0400

Hello,
 
 
You are kind of stupid Bonita Montero
 
First she has assumed that i must do larger projects, and this is
childish , because i have a Diploma in Microelectronics and
i have succeeded one year of mathematics, and i have done pascal
and assembler programming in Microelectronics, so this is why
i am inventing many algorithms, my job is not a programmer that
do larger projects..
 
Second, i am putting my work on internet , so if you want to
use it use it, and if you don't want to use it don't use it,
so don't be childish Bonita Montero, i am just helping with
my work, and i have learned fast C++ to be able to port my work.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 09:34PM +0100

> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.
 
I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 04:39PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 4:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.
 
> I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.
 
Hello.....
 
To madam Bonita Montero, how can i be stupid? read about
this philosophical problem that i wrote and you will know
that i am not stupid, i have learned english fast,
because my native language is arabic and french, we speak
arabic and french in my native country Morocco:
 
I am a white arab...
 
I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
And "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.
 
I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.
 
So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.
 
But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:
 
We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.
 
And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:
 
As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system, since the
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and
which facilitates because of its speed of computation as in the case of
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 04:40PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 4:34 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming.
 
> I wouldn't trust you even in writing a 1.000-lines application.
 
Hello...
 
 
How can i be stupid ?
 
Read also the following that i wrote:
 
I am a white arab...
 
Now I will give my explanation of what is consciousness...
 
I hope that in my previous messages you have understood my explanation
of how the consciousness of time is generated by our brain, I have said
that the brain has a sense of direction that makes it possible to say
that one object is left or on the right and back or front etc., and the
brain is also able to see space in 3 dimensions with the sense of the
gaze for example, that is to say to give coordinates as cartesian or
polar in three dimensions to objects in the space of reality, and also
the brain by means of the sense of touch and the eye is capable of the
sense of the measurement of the magnitudes in the space of reality,
these are ingredients of the brain which gives birth to the
consciousness of time, for consciousness
of time means that for two objects that follow each other, we
are able to feel the existence in space
of the back of the first object (by the sens of the orientation of the
brain)
Which is for example "nothing", and that one also feels the existence in
the space of the back of the second object which is the first object,
and that we are therefore able to associate the back of the second
object to the word "before", and this is how the consciousness of time
is engendered ... now i come to a question even more
important, but what is consciousness really?
i start with an example so that you can understand what
it really is: when you touch your hands with water
very hot, you are able to feel the pain and
to say that it is you who feel the pain, so the meaning
of touch is closely linked to the consciousness of the "I", but
Let us return, if you like, to the experiences of a child,
you will notice that a necessary condition for the child
to be able to learn and understand is to be able to
ask the question of "what is", but you see this question has as a
necessary condition the consciousness of the self, for when the child
arises, question of "what is" is that it would mean:
"I would like to know what it is", and the "I would like to know"
demonstrates the presence of a consciousness of the pre-ego which
guide the questioning of the child, but then what is this
awareness of the pre-ego that guides the questioning that
makes a consciousness too? Here is my answer: I believe that
as in the case of the sense of touch which is in close relationship
with the consciousness of the ego, the act of reflection is also a sens
as the sens of touch that is able to make us feel that
we exist and feel the space in three dimensions, as for touching the
very warm water that allows us to feel that the feeling of hot water
hurts us ... what would I like to say?
that the sens of touch and the sens of smell for example are adjoined
to space-time to give a better consciousness of space-time,
that is, the ideas we have of space-time are not
, for example, just rules of logic, but also are recorded with
sensations of touch and other sensations to give a better
consciousness, so the act of reflection is not just able to logically
reason with simple rules of logic for building more complex logic rules
etc. But it is also capable of associating space-time sensations with
objects that are displaced in a 3-dimensional world, and therefore my
theory makes us see the act of thought as also being also another sens
that resembles the sens of touch , this is my explanation of how the
consciousness and consciousness of the ego is engendered by the brain.
 
When you say in mathematical logic:
 
A or B
 
How do you think you understand this logical rule?
You must go back to your childhood when you were
to learn it, you were told for example there are two balls,
and you had to take just one and give it back, and the teacher
made us understand for example the following: when you want to take two
balls you are informed with gestures that it is NO,
And when you just take one and turn the ball back, you get
to know that it is YES, therefore I affirm that it is thanks to the
existence of space-time which is also a consequence of our interior
sensation of the space-time which gives the consciousness of space-time,
I mean you are able for example with your brain
to feel and understand what BEFORE or BEHIND
Or LEFT or RIGHT, and you are able to feel the
space and to say that it exists and what it is, so you
are able to feel the space-time, and this sensation
in our brain that we have of space-time helps us
to understand the logical rule of: A or B, or the logical rule
of: A and B.
 
So let us return to the following theorem in mathematical logic:
 
If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.
 
So how do you understand the:
If A then B? As in my explanation above, you can not
understand this rule without being conscious and without feeling
space-time, because even if you are a blind person, you can
feel your individuality and your singularity
which is the consciousness of the ego, and this self-consciousness
is a consequence of the sensation in our brain of space-time that allows
us to feel that the object which is
"WE" is different from other objects etc. Then what makes
even the blind man feels the space-time and is capable
to say that this object is before that object in time,
So it is able to understand the logical rule of:
If A then B, and since he is capable of doing so, he is capable, thanks
to the sensation of the space-time
that we have in our brain, that permit us to understand
The following theorem:
 
If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.
 
This is my evidence based on the empirical facts
and this proves that mathematical logic is also a consequence
of the sensation that we have in our brain of space-time,
without this sensation we can not, in my opinion, understand
mathematical logic, and since the machine is incapable of
feeling like a human space-time, then
we can not say that artificial intelligence
Is capable of achieving the emergence of
consciousness.
 
 
thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Mar 18 08:43PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:04:08 -0400
> you don't find them on C++ and this is the truth.
 
> And i am an experienced programmer and i think that my C++
> synchronization objects library is more stable and fast.
 
Your libraries seem useless. That is evident by the frequency with
which you post ceaseless corrections, sometimes only 30 minutes apart.
It seems difficult to believe that anyone uses them.
 
It also appears that you are not an experienced programmer. This
follows from the fact that you have failed to understand the basic point
which Bonita was making: if you use a C++ mutex, then that automatically
provides the non-reordering guarantees that you find so attractive in
Delphi. That is a language requirement.
 
You also seem unaware that the default memory ordering in C++ for
atomic variables is sequential consistency, which you also find so
attractive in Delphi. If you want to choose weak memory ordering then
you have to do so explicitly. Having said that, the whole-program
store ordering for atomic variables provided by sequential consistency
is very rarely necessary. In most circumstances acquire/release
ordering on atomics is all that is needed, and more or less comes for
free on x86/64. You cannot write really high performance code with full
sequential consistency.
 
The fact that you do not understand that seems to show that you are a
novice.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 09:45PM +0100

You're focussed on tiny algorithms. That doesn't make you an experienced
programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
from that point because you are bewildered.
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 04:50PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 4:43 PM, Chris Vine wrote:
> The fact that you do not understand that seems to show that you are a
> novice.
 
You seem to not understand that i am not a C++ programmer, i am
a Delphi and FreePascal programmer, i have learned fast C++ to be
able to port my softwares that i have written in Object Pascal to C++,
and C++ is not difficult for me, because i am an experienced programmer
in Delphi and FreePascal.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 04:53PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 4:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
> large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
> from that point because you are bewildered.
 
We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile, and V&V
and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what do you think
is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 09:59PM +0100

> We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile,
> and V&V and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what
> do you think is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.
 
I won't rely on someone like you when planning even a mid-sized
project. You're obviously mentally disordered and bewildered to
an extent that you won't handle such projects with a acceptable
quality. This can be derived from the bug-frequency of your libs,
which are only very tiny projects.
For real-world applications, someone needs much more knowledge
and creativity than for such tiny projects.
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:00PM +0100

> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
 
Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
 
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Mar 18 09:00PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:50:24 -0400
> able to port my softwares that i have written in Object Pascal to C++,
> and C++ is not difficult for me, because i am an experienced
> programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
 
You seem to either not understand logic, or you cannot remember what
you wrote a few hours ago. You said:
 
"C++ compilers today follow a weak memory model and this is error
prone when you want to reason about sequential consistency when doing
parallel programming.
 
But Delphi and FreePascal compilers don't reorder loads and stores,
so it is less error prone than C++ on a strong memory model of x86
architecture and on strong memory model of ARM architecture."
 
It is pleasing at least that you now admit that you do not understand
enough C++ to qualify yourself to make these remarks, which were simply
wrong about the C++ defaults. In view of that, can I suggest that you
stop posting your inane remarks about C++ in this newsgroup until you
know something about the subject.
 
The fact that you need full sequential consistency to understand your
own code also shows that you have a lot to learn about threads before
you can claim not to be a novice. I suggest that you need to read up on
memory ordering and memory barriers before you do anything further.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:02PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 4:45 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> programmer. For me an experienced programmer is someone that can handle
> large projects and is able to structrure them maintainable. You're far
> from that point because you are bewildered.
 
And what do you think many are doing here on this forum of C++ ?
 
They are like following guidelines like ISO for large projects, by
showing how to use meta-programming with templates to simplify
complexity of managing bigger projects, and using constexpr to optimize
like for ROM etc. do you think i am stupid? i am not interested by there
guidelines, because i know what they are doing.
 
And i have just said also that:
 
We don't agree, i have looked at extreme programming and agile and V&V
and those are like guidelines for larger projects, what do you think
is ISO ? ISO is just guidelines to follow.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:10PM +0100

> And what do you think many are doing here on this forum of C++ ?
 
They're not focussed on a very small set of problems like you.
And they post ofen topics which are of interest for much readers
- unlike you.
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com>: Mar 18 05:14PM -0400

On 18/03/2017 20:59, Bonita Montero wrote:
 
> You're obviously mentally disordered and bewildered to
> an extent that you won't handle such projects with a acceptable
> quality.
 
 
He is a Muslim and so by definition he must be mentally sick. He is
just looking for a way to blow himself up. Look what that Muslim did in
France early today.
 
Why are you getting involved with him? Some of us have kill-filed him
long time ago.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:12PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 5:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
 
> Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
> programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
 
You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
 
I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded of mathematics
at the unversity level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.
 
 
You see ?
 
You don't understand about me.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:14PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 5:00 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> ..., because i am an experienced programmer in Delphi and FreePascal.
 
> Your definition to determine if someone is a "experienced
> programmer" is childish. You derive it from tiny projects.
 
Read again:
 
You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
 
I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.
 
 
You see ?
 
You don't understand about me.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:16PM -0400

On 3/18/2017 5:14 PM, Real Troll wrote:
> France early today.
 
> Why are you getting involved with him? Some of us have kill-filed him
> long time ago.
 
She is stupid because she thinks that i am a programmer that have to do
larger projects..
 
Read again:
 
You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
 
I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.
 
 
You see ?
 
You don't understand about me.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:22PM +0100

> You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
 
Minutes ago you wrote:
 
> i am an experienced programmer who knows more about programming
 
Please stop spamming this newsgroup.
Your postings are disturbing and of note for no one.
 
--
http://facebook.com/bonita.montero/
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Mar 18 09:25PM

On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 17:14:37 -0400
> mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal
> in Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
> i am not seeking to do bigger projects.
 
Oh great. First you admit you do not know enough C++ to qualify you to
comment on C++. Now you admit that you are not even a programmer, let
alone the "experienced programmer" you claimed to be less than an hour
ago.
 
Can I suggest that you stop posting to any programming related news
groups until you have learnt to program, except for the purpose of
asking questions? For that purpose, you cannot learn to program just by
writing your little toy projects. You need to learn about the
disciplines necessary to write working code, and practise it.
 
In the meantime, your views on philosophy will, I imagine, be well
received on newsgroups concerned with such matters. This one is not.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 05:21PM -0400

Hello,
 
This Bonita Montero is stupid because she thinks that i am a programmer
that have to do larger projects..
 
Read again:
 
You don't seem to understand that i am not a programmer..
 
I have a diploma in Microelectronics and i have succeeded one year of
mathematics at the university level, i have done assembler and pascal in
Microelectronics , this is why i am inventing algorithms,
i am not seeking to do bigger projects.
 
 
You see ?
 
You don't understand about me.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Ramine <toto@toto.net>: Mar 18 04:39PM -0400

Hello.....
 
To madam Bonita Montero, how can i be stupid? read about
this philosophical problem that i wrote and you will know
that i am not stupid, i have learned english fast,
because my native language is arabic and french, we speak
arabic and french in my native country Morocco:
 
I am a white arab...
 
I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
And "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.
 
I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.
 
So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.
 
But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:
 
We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.
 
And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:
 
As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system, since the
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and
which facilitates because of its speed of computation as in the case of
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)