- Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness [ All infinite sets have the same cardinality ] - 12 Updates
- Strange code-generation - 3 Updates
- [Nix] another doubt for the possible memory leak problem - 7 Updates
- Today i will talk about Rust and about race conditions detection and deadlock detection.. - 1 Update
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 09:50AM -0500 On 9/15/2019 3:09 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > It doesn't matter how many arguments you present or how much you > shout, it will not make "the smallest real number larger than 3" > to start to exist. The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 (0.0, 3.0] The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0 [0.0, 3.0] If we limit the specified points in the intervals to integers then: (0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3} [0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3} Proving that the above intervals are not the same length. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 05:13PM +0100 On 16/09/2019 15:50, peteolcott wrote: > The length of this interval is exactly 3.0 > (0.0, 3.0] > The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for such a number to exist. > The length of this interval is exactly one geometric point longer than 3.0 > [0.0, 3.0] Nonsense. 3.0 - 0.0 = 3.0 > (0.0, 3.0] specifies: {1,2,3} > [0.0, 3.0] specifies: {0,1,2,3} > Proving that the above intervals are not the same length. More nonsense, length and set cardinality are two different things. It really would be a good idea for you to take your meds, m8. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 11:24AM -0500 On 9/16/2019 11:13 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> (0.0, 3.0] >> The smallest real number larger than 0.0 is its first point. > There isn't a smallest real number larger than 0.0; it is impossible for such a number to exist. https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. Since [0, 100) clearly specifies every point on the number line between 0 and 100 except 100 it is specifying the point immediately before 100 as the last point of this interval with no points in-between this point and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 05:30PM +0100 On 16/09/2019 17:24, peteolcott wrote: > and 100. THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. > This contradicts the definition of real numbers that specifies there > is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 12:08PM -0500 On 9/16/2019 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> is always a real number between every pair of real numbers. > Points have a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds. > /Flibble The relation between real numbers and points on a number line is defined inconsistently. >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed >> points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B thus the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 06:15PM +0100 On 16/09/2019 18:08, peteolcott wrote: > The above stipulates all of the points between A and B besides A and B thus > the first point AFTER A (with no points in-between) and the first point > BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. That definition is entirely consistent with points having a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds so you can spare us any more demented posts. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 01:35PM -0500 On 9/16/2019 12:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> BEFORE B (with no points in-between) ARE SPECIFIED in this interval. > That definition is entirely consistent with points having a "width" of zero, dear. Please take your meds so you can spare us any more demented posts. > /Flibble (A) An open interval specifies its first point as immediately after a specified point with no points in-between. (B) The definition of real numbers says there are always points in-between. (A) contradicts (B). -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 08:02PM +0100 On 16/09/2019 19:35, peteolcott wrote: > specified point with no points in-between. > (B) The definition of real numbers says there are always points in-between. > (A) contradicts (B). (A) is erroneous, you made "immediately after" and "no points in-between" up based on nothing but your demented thoughts and reasoning. Take your meds. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 02:48PM -0500 On 9/16/2019 2:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> (A) contradicts (B). > (A) is erroneous, you made "immediately after" and "no points in-between" up based on nothing but your demented thoughts and reasoning. Take your meds. > /Flibble You aren't bright enough to actually follow the reasoning. You can only spout off what you learned by rote. A number line has an infinite set of contiguous ascending points. When you remove the very first point of an interval [0, 1] you are left with an interval beginning with the very next point (0, 1]. Even if every other aspect of mathematics disagrees, none-the-less the beginning of this interval: (0, 1] stipulates the point immediately after 0. If every other aspect of mathematics says no such point exists, none-the-less it is defined to exist by the definition of open interval. Learned-by-rote people are not bright enough to discern new innovations. To them any new idea is always incorrect because it is unconventional. They simply are not bright enough to process reasoning instead they merely look up the "facts" of conventional wisdom. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 16 10:26PM +0100 On 16/09/2019 20:48, peteolcott wrote: > To them any new idea is always incorrect because it is unconventional. > They simply are not bright enough to process reasoning instead they > merely look up the "facts" of conventional wisdom. This is the most perfect example of projection that I have ever seen. /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 06:11PM -0500 On 9/16/2019 4:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> merely look up the "facts" of conventional wisdom. > This is the most perfect example of projection that I have ever seen. > /Flibble My position is diametrically opposed to the learned-by-rote position thus proving that I did not learn it by rote. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 16 06:12PM -0500 On 9/16/2019 6:11 PM, peteolcott wrote: >> /Flibble > My position is diametrically opposed to the learned-by-rote position > thus proving that I did not learn it by rote. You would have to double your wits to become a halfwit. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Sep 16 02:53PM +0200 I just experimented a bit with downcasting to a derived class. So here's the code: struct A { int a, b, c; }; struct B { int d, e, f; }; struct D : public A, public B { int i, j, k; }; D *f( B &b ) { return &static_cast<D &>(b); } This is what you will expect ... with g++: leaq -12(%rdi), %rax ret This is what makes MSVC from the above code xor edx, edx lea rax, QWORD PTR [rcx-12] test rcx, rcx cmove rax, rdx ret 0 So MSVC keeps a nullpointer when the input was also a nullpointer. Is there any requirement of the standard that mandates this behaviour? I think it would be even stupid to include that into the standard. C++ isn't a language with child-proof locks. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 16 04:59PM +0300 On 16.09.2019 15:53, Bonita Montero wrote: > So MSVC keeps a nullpointer when the input was also a nullpointer. > Is there any requirement of the standard that mandates this behaviour? > I think it would be even stupid to include that into the standard. In standard C++ one cannot legally construct a "null reference", so the standard cannot mandate any behavior regarding them. The special handling of null only applies to the pointer form of static_cast<>. However, an implementation may define behavior for things which are UB by the standard. MSVC supports things like this==nullptr (see e.g. CWnd::GetSafeHwnd() function), so maybe it supports "null references" as well, possibly for backward compatibility with their own old code. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Sep 16 09:08PM +0200 I think this is relevant: "A prvalue of type "pointer to cv1 B," where B is a class type, can be converted to a prvalue of type "pointer to cv2 D," where D is a class derived (Clause 10) from B, if a valid standard conversion from "pointer to D" to "pointer to B" exists (4.10), cv2 is the same cv-qualification as, or greater cv-qualification than, cv1, and B is neither a virtual base class of D nor a base class of a virtual base class of D. The null pointer value (4.10) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is converted to the null pointer value of the destination type ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..." The compiler just handles it the same way for references because the internal representation is the same as with pointers. |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 16 11:51AM On Sat, 2019-09-14, Soviet_Mario wrote: > Il 14/09/19 02:17, Keith Thompson ha scritto: >> Soviet_Mario <SovietMario@CCCP.MIR> writes: >>> Il 13/09/19 20:29, Keith Thompson ha scritto: ... >> Ah, I wasn't sure what "[Nix]" meant. > sorry ... I seldom use that nickname, I've learnt it here on > usenet In some other group, perhaps? I suggest saying "Unix", "POSIX" or "Linux" instead. The word "Nix" is unfamiliar to me too, and I've been reading Unix- and C++-related newsgroups since the mid-1990s. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Sep 16 05:17AM -0700 On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:51:28 AM UTC-4, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > > sorry ... I seldom use that nickname, I've learnt it here on > > usenet > In some other group, perhaps? No, this one :-) Use of "Nix" is commonplace in this group, used by David Brown, Alf Steinbach, Vir Campestris, and others. Daniel |
| James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 16 10:09AM -0400 On 9/16/19 8:17 AM, Daniel wrote: >>> usenet >> In some other group, perhaps? > No, this one :-) Use of "Nix" is commonplace in this group, used by David Brown, Alf Steinbach, Vir Campestris, and others. I think you may have been confused *nix, which is commonplace, with Nix, which is not. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Branding>: "Sometimes a representation like Un*x, *NIX, or *N?X is used to indicate all operating systems similar to Unix. This comes from the use of the asterisk (*) and the question mark characters as wildcard indicators in many utilities. This notation is also used to describe other Unix-like systems that have not met the requirements for UNIX branding from the Open Group." |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Sep 16 07:36AM -0700 On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 10:09:26 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote: > which is not. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Branding>: > "Sometimes a representation like Un*x, *NIX, or *N?X is used to indicate > all operating systems similar to Unix. Okay, you can nix my comment. Daniel |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 16 02:42PM >all operating systems similar to Unix. This comes from the use of the >asterisk (*) and the question mark characters as wildcard indicators in >many utilities. Technically, no *nix utility knows anything about the asterisk and question mark as wild card characters. The shell expands (globs) all wildcards and passes the expanded result(s) in argv[] to the utility. VMS did the wild-carding in each application rather than in DCL. |
| Manfred <noname@add.invalid>: Sep 16 05:56PM +0200 On 9/16/2019 4:42 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > question mark as wild card characters. The shell expands (globs) > all wildcards and passes the expanded result(s) in argv[] to the utility. > VMS did the wild-carding in each application rather than in DCL. So did MS-DOS |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 16 08:21PM +0300 On 16.09.2019 17:42, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Technically, no *nix utility knows anything about the asterisk and > question mark as wild card characters. Except of those that do, e.g. find . -name '*.cpp' |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Sep 16 06:09AM +0200 You're manic and need a doctor. And according to that you have phases where you don't say anything I'll bet you're manic-depressive. |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment