Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 4 topics

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 17 04:01PM -0400

[If anyone knows a better place to post this question, please let me
know and I'll take it there.]
 
In Visual Studio 2019, when you attach to process, suspend execution,
edit code and apply changes using the edit-and-continue feature, it
does not let you detach from the process after those changes have been
made.
 
Does anyone know why that is?
 
I can possibly see the need to warn the user that the binary file
on disk will not have been updated, but why can't the altered binary
image running in memory be maintained as-is for the duration of its
life?
 
Seems an arbitrary limitation.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 16 05:54PM -0700

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:48:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote:
...
> 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.
 
No, the definition of an open interval is explicitly based upon the
absence of such a point. See
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_(mathematics)#Terminology>:
 
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012
"An interval is said to be left-open if and only if it contains no
minimum (an element that is smaller than all other elements); right-open
if it contains no maximum; and open if it has both properties. The
interval [0,1) = {x | 0 ≤ x < 1}, for example, is left-closed and right-
open. The empty set and the set of all reals are open intervals, while
the set of non-negative reals, for example, is a right-open but not
left-open interval."
guinness.tony@gmail.com: Sep 17 12:16AM -0700

On Tuesday, 17 September 2019 00:11:29 UTC+1, peteolcott wrote:
 
> > /Flibble
 
> My position is diametrically opposed to the learned-by-rote position
> thus proving that I did not learn it by rote.
 
If you omitted those last three words you would be correct.
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 17 08:05AM

> 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.
 
You can repeat that as many times as you want, but that will not make
such a number to exist.
 
There is no "smallest real number larger than 0". Learn some number
theory, will you?
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Sep 17 08:11AM

> Even if every other aspect of mathematics disagrees, none-the-less the
> beginning of this interval: (0, 1] stipulates the point immediately after 0.
 
There is no point immediately after 0. You might be incapable of
comprehending such a fact of mathematics, but that doesn't mean
it's incorrect.
 
An open interval does not mean that there must exist a particular
number at the end of that interval. There is no such number. You cannot
give its value as it's conceptually and mathematically non-existent.
It doesn't exist even in some kind of abstract meta-sense. It doesn't
exist even if you introduce the concept of "infinitesimal" into your
number system (no matter how you define "infinitesimal").
 
Positing that there exists such a number leads immediately to a
contradiction, and it's extraordinarily simple to prove that.
Since the assumption was that the number exists, but that assumption
leads to a contradiction, that means that the assumption was incorrect.
"Proof by contradiction" is not just some wishy-washy nebulous term.
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 17 09:10AM -0400

On 9/16/19 8:54 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
 
> "An interval is said to be left-open if and only if it contains no
> minimum (an element that is smaller than all other elements); right-open
> if it contains no maximum; and open if it has both properties. ...
I realized a few additional points after posting that message.
 
If, as you claim, the interval (0, 1] contains a minimum value (let's
call it iota, for convenience), then it is, by definition (see above)
left-closed, not left-open. Therefore, that interval can be written as
[iota, 1].
 
Now, since 0 < iota and iota < 1, (0, 1] is the union of
(0, iota) and [iota, 1]. Your claim is equivalent, therefore, to the
claim that (0, iota) is the empty set.
 
But the Lesbesgue measure of (0, iota) is iota - 0, or simply iota.
Since iota > 0, the interval (0, iota) can't empty. Furthermore, the
Lesbesgue measure of (0, 1] is 1 - 0 = 1, whereas the Lesbesgue measure
of [iota, 1] is 1 - iota. Since
0 < iota, 1 - iota < 1. Since (0, 1] and [iota, 1] have different
measures, they can't be the same set.
 
 
For any point x in (iota, 1), since 0 < iota < x < 1, the value y =
iota*(x - iota)/(1 - iota) is real, greater than 0, and less than iota.
In other words, it is an element of (0, iota). Therefore, the claim that
(0, 1] contains a minimum value leads to a contradiction, because every
value of y is in the interval (0, 1], and is less than iota.
 
Note that in the above paragraph I was referring to the open interval
(iota, 1), not the closed interval [iota,1] - don't get confused about
the difference between the two intervals. I specified that open interval
because the claims I made about y would not be true for x=iota or x=1.
peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 17 11:45AM -0500

On 9/17/2019 3:05 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> such a number to exist.
 
> There is no "smallest real number larger than 0". Learn some number
> theory, will you?
 
Keith Thompson proves that he fully understands the Infinitesimal
number system:
 
On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
> adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than
> any positive real number.
 
He elaborates this understanding much more completely in his
9/16/2019 11:38 PM, reply.
 
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 17 11:48AM -0500

On 9/17/2019 3:11 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Since the assumption was that the number exists, but that assumption
> leads to a contradiction, that means that the assumption was incorrect.
> "Proof by contradiction" is not just some wishy-washy nebulous term.
 
On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
 
--
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 17 06:14PM +0100

On 17/09/2019 17:45, peteolcott wrote:
> > any positive real number.
 
> He elaborates this understanding much more completely in his
> 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, reply.
 
The fact that this Keith Thompson bloke is also talking bollocks has no
bearing on the fact that you are still hopelessly wrong. Do what someone
else suggested and learn some number theory (and 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 17 12:36PM -0500

On 9/17/2019 12:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, reply.
 
> The fact that this Keith Thompson bloke is also talking bollocks has no bearing on the fact that you are still hopelessly wrong. Do what someone else suggested and learn some number theory (and take your meds).
 
> /Flibble
 
Mike Terry also agrees with a key element.
It is not that any of us are wrong. We would be wrong from the limited
perspective of the Real number system, yet are not confined inside the
box of this number system.
 
When thinking outside the box occurs different number systems that are
apparently more dense than the Real number system can be imagined.
 
To people that are enclosed in the tight little boxes of conventional
wisdom every new idea that contradicts their learned-by-rote seems to
be an error. Recent research shows that inflexible thinking is due to
abnormalities in the brain that show up on brain scans.
 
 
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>: Sep 17 06:59PM +0100

On 17/09/2019 18:14, Mr Flibble wrote:
> bearing on the fact that you are still hopelessly wrong. Do what someone
> else suggested and learn some number theory (and take your meds).
 
> /Flibble
 
Please do not assume that because PO says somebody or other "agrees"
with him on something, that they actually do agree. And if they do
agree ON SOME SPECIFIC POINT, within SOME QUALIFIED CONTEXT, that does
not mean they "support" PO generally, or that PO has honestly
represented their views with his selective quoting.
 
For all you know, PO is quoting sentences you've written and presenting
them elsewhere as "/Flibble over in xxxx agrees with me that xxxx", and
people there are saying "Hey, that /Flibble guy doesn't half talk a load
of bollocks!"
 
Mike.
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>: Sep 17 11:10AM -0700


>> You can repeat that as many times as you want, but that will not make
>> such a number to exist.
 
>> There is no "smallest real number larger than 0".
[...]
 
Agreed.
 
> Keith Thompson proves that he fully understands the Infinitesimal
> number system:
 
I do not fully understand infinitesimals, and I have not claimed
that I do.
 
[...]
 
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>: Sep 17 07:45PM +0100

On 17/09/2019 18:36, peteolcott wrote:
> wisdom every new idea that contradicts their learned-by-rote seems to
> be an error. Recent research shows that inflexible thinking is due to
> abnormalities in the brain that show up on brain scans.
 
LOL, he's doing it to me now! (I don't think he knows I sometimes
follow these newsgroups)
 
For the record, I didn't say that PO wasn't wrong. In fact I can't see
ANYTHING in the above paragraphs that matches up with ANYTHING I've said
elsewhere. It's purely PO's words.
 
PO believes he is an unacknowledged genius [ok, he said recently that
/maybe/ he was only borderline genius - I don't want to give the
impression PO is anything but modest!] but the truth is he's not a
genius - he's actually a "DELUDED DUMBO".
 
The DUMBO label comes from his inability to follow arguments and
comprehend basic concepts in the fields he spouts forth his nonsense on.
I'm sure he has previously tried to study at least a little CS and
Logic, but he had to give up because it was all just beyond him. His
knowledge of [everything] is just based on reading Wikipedia articles,
without understanding them, and coming away with just a couple of
keywords he can (mis)use. He admits to spending 15 years studying just
two pages from a book (author Linz) covering the proof of the Halting
Problem result. (And of course, he still doesn't get it...)
 
The DELUDED label probably I don't need to explain further! Just in
case it's not well known here:
 
- he believes he is an unacknowledged (borderline) genius with powers
beyond those of normal people
 
- he is going to gain credibility as a logician/computer scientist/??
by refuting a string of key mathematical results that he does not even
understand (Godel Incompleteness theorem, Halting Problem, Rice's
theorem, Tarski's "undefineability of Truth", and lately "refuting
Cardinality")
 
- Then when he goes back to Doug Lenat (CYC project), Doug will have no
choice but to put him in charge of the architecture for the Cyc upper
ontology layer.
 
- Then he will somehow become the first person to have created a "human
mind inside a computer".
 
- Umm, let's not get started on the "God beliefs" (He is God, the
"actual creator of the universe", and he can make other individuals
follow his will, just by wishing for them to do what he wants, and as
God, he has access to a mode of infallible reasoning not available to
others etc.. Hope I've got all that right!)
 
Seriously, the God stuff is right out there - he even used this as a
defense in a legal case in which he was involved: (Google "peter olcott
god"). Normally I wouldn't bring that to anyone's attention, but hey,
nobody likes cranks misusing their name for their own gain...
 
Anyway, my suggestion is that if you want PO to keep on posting his OT
rubbish in these newsgroups, keep on arguing with him to prove him
wrong! He loves all that stuff. You certainly won't make him stop by
nicely asking him not to post OT stuff...
 
 
Mike.
peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 17 01:48PM -0500

On 9/17/2019 1:10 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> number system:
 
> I do not fully understand infinitesimals, and I have not claimed
> that I do.
 
This is the key essence of it:
On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
> adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than
> any positive real number.
 
[A, B] - {A} = (A, B] encoded as [A[1], B[0]]
[A[1], B[0]] - {A[1]} = (A[1], B[0]] encoded as [A[2], B[0]]
 
 
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>: Sep 17 12:01PM -0700

> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
[SNIP]
 
My apologies, I didn't notice which newsgroups this was posted to.
 
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 17 08:09PM +0100

On 17/09/2019 18:36, peteolcott wrote:
> wisdom every new idea that contradicts their learned-by-rote seems to
> be an error. Recent research shows that inflexible thinking is due to
> abnormalities in the brain that show up on brain scans.
 
You seriously need to take your meds, m8, you are quite mad.
 
/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."
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 17 09:10PM +0200

On 17/09/2019 18:48, peteolcott wrote:
> > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
> > adjacent to the real number 0.  It is greater than 0 and less than
> > any positive real number.
 
You can always define extra elements and add them to sets like this.
But you can't do so in a way that is consistent in other ways. So you
can make the ordered set of "real in (0, 1] plus iota", but you lose
other properties of the reals. "reals plus iota" is not a field, nor is
it complete.
 
And it does not make sense to talk about "having a location on the
number line" without defining "the number line" - normally that term is
used precisely to mean the real numbers.
peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 17 02:14PM -0500

On 9/17/2019 2:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> abnormalities in the brain that show up on brain scans.
 
> You seriously need to take your meds, m8, you are quite mad.
 
> /Flibble
 
That you have totally run out of all reasoning as any rebuttal is
sufficient evidence of the plausibility that my assertion is correct.
 
You are very highly motivated to prove that I am wrong yet cannot only
because I AM NOT WRONG !!!
 
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
peteolcott <Here@Home>: Sep 17 02:30PM -0500

On 9/17/2019 2:10 PM, David Brown wrote:
 
> You can always define extra elements and add them to sets like this. But you can't do so in a way that is consistent in other ways.  So you can make the ordered set of "real in (0, 1] plus iota", but you lose other properties of the reals.  "reals plus
> iota" is not a field, nor is it complete.
 
> And it does not make sense to talk about "having a location on the number line" without defining "the number line" - normally that term is used precisely to mean the real numbers.
 
This is not Keith and Mike's ideas it is their agreement with my ideas:
These are the two key essences of agreement with Infinitesimal Numbers:
 
On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
> adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than
> any positive real number.
 
On 9/16/2019 8:33 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> OK, so (A,B] = [A,B] - {A}, and that can be counted as an "operation
in which we get (A,B] from [A,B].
 
Here are some examples of the next level of elaboration based on the
above two key essences of agreement:
Mike Terry agreed with this verbatim: [A, B] - {A} = (A, B]
 
Infinitesimal Numbers would encode (A, B] as [A[1], B]
We merely extrapolate the very next elaboration
[A[1], B] - {A[1]} = (A[1], B] encoded as [A[2], B]
 
 
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 17 05:52AM

On Mon, 2019-09-16, Bonita Montero wrote:
> 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.
 
Please don't diagnose people based on their Usenet postings.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
seeplus <boardmounrt@gmail.com>: Sep 16 11:24PM -0700

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:52:25 PM UTC+10, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> > phases where you don't say anything I'll bet you're manic-depressive.
 
> Please don't diagnose people based on their Usenet postings.
 
> /Jorgen
 
You are diagnosing a person's Usenet posting, based on their diagnosis of a person's Usenet posting.
Well that is my diagnosis.
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Sep 16 11:25PM -0700

On 9/16/2019 11:24 PM, seeplus wrote:
 
>> /Jorgen
 
> You are diagnosing a person's Usenet posting, based on their diagnosis of a person's Usenet posting.
> Well that is my diagnosis.
 
Sounds fractal... ;^)
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Sep 17 08:33AM +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.
 
> Please don't diagnose people based on their Usenet postings.
 
The frequency of his postings and, topics they're about and
the phases where he doesn't post anything allow this conclusion.
Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com>: Sep 17 08:22AM

>> 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.
 
> Please don't diagnose people based on their Usenet postings.
 
I think that he is not willing to communicate. He wrote once that he has
problems...
 
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu>: Sep 16 08:25PM -0400

On 9/16/19 10:42 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
...
 
> 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.
 
I believe that what the author meant would have been better expressed
using "shells" rather than "utilities". With that correction, it's an
accurate statement.
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)