- What is it to be smart ? - 2 Updates
- More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. - 1 Update
- About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. - 1 Update
- More about Delphi and Freepascal in the Delphi mode.. - 1 Update
- Indian students to learn computer programming from age 10 as part of new education policy - 1 Update
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 31 04:25PM -0700 Hello, What is it to be smart ? Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo: I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice: Why are humans smarter than other animals? https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021 So as you are noticing he is saying the following: -- "The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene. Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good." -- So i am smart like a genius and i say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following: "Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy" This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above. The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following: Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following: "Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast." So i think that the above webpage is not right. So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct. So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully: I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage: Look at the following webpage from BBC: The myth of universal beauty https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage: "Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive" So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Aug 01 01:29PM +0200 > Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo: > I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius , > since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart".. "Intenting" algorithms which have been invtented before and which aren't rudimentary complex doesn't make you a genius. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 31 02:16PM -0700 Hello, More analysis of Lock-free algorithms.. I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs: Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science Here he is: http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories Here he is: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention: https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention: About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 31 01:37PM -0700 Hello, About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again.. Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing: http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc. Read my following thoughts to notice it: About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms.. I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms.. I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ? I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads): - Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can freely interleave execution. - Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high- priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the OS kernel. - Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance. - Starvation-free. - And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock- free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k) and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under scheduling conditions which approximate those found in commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)), read more below to understand more. You can read about them and download them from my website here: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 31 12:50PM -0700 Hello, More about Delphi and Freepascal in the Delphi mode.. As you have noticed, i am also working with Delphi and with Freepascal in the Delphi mode.. WHY DELPHI? Delphi is based on the Pascal programming language designed by Professor Niklaus Emil Wirth, Ph.D. to teach good programming practices using structured programming and data structures. Object Pascal and Delphi expand on the Pascal's imperative procedural programming language foundation adding many new language features and paradigms. Today's Delphi has rich support for Objects, Anonymous methods, Generics, Multi-Threading, and a robust type system. With free libraries it is easy to expand Delphi with Duck Typing, Domain Specific, Functional Logic, Neural Networking, and more. No other programming language provides such diverse programming paradigms, with a simple to learn language, native compilation to so many platforms, and rich IDE and tooling. All with a fantastic free license to get you started. Read more my thoughts here about Delphi: https://community.idera.com/developer-tools/general-development/f/getit-and-third-party/72830/more-about-delphi-and-freepascal-and-c-and-python Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| aminer68@gmail.com: Jul 31 10:46AM -0700 Hello, Read the following news: Indian students to learn computer programming from age 10 as part of new education policy Read more here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fetudes.developpez.com%2Factu%2F307659%2FLes-eleves-indiens-vont-apprendre-la-programmation-informatique-des-l-age-de-10-ans-dans-le-cadre-d-une-nouvelle-politique-educative-dont-le-gouvernement-annonce-la-prochaine-entree-en-vigueur%2F And the above news is related to the following article from the New Yorker , read it carefully: Do We Really Need to Learn to Code? Read more here: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/do-we-really-need-to-learn-to-code 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.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment