Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 2 topics

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 31 08:19AM +0200

STOP POSTING in comp.lang.c/c++ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Mar 30 04:53PM -0700

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 8:33:50 PM UTC-5, Brian Wood wrote:
> > programming fine, but that's not the main ability if you want to make a
> > living from your software. Damn few people can manage to handle both
> > roles well, and it's not easy (ask Jacob Navia how much free time he gets).
 
It seems that some haven't heard a word I've said in the
last however many years here. On-line code generation
is not just for breakfast anymore. It's not too late. By the
grace of G-d, there's still time to improve my repo:
 
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
 
Thanks and regards.
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.

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Mar 30 07:29AM -0700

Hello,
 
As you have noticed i have tried to post some contents in this newsgroup
(but it was not spam), since the usenet has been dying since 2005, read here to notice it:
 
The end of USENET
 
https://lwn.net/Articles/160908/
 
 
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.

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 4 updates in 3 topics

Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Mar 30 04:20PM -0700

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 12:37:35 PM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
> >"What Will Die Out Sooner C++ or C++ Programmers?" by Oleksandr Kaleniuk
> IMO, this is just a flamey attention-seeking blog post, not a well
> reasoned argument.
 
Probably some parts of the language will die out, but I think
both the language and those who use it properly have a bright
future.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will
go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business, and make a
profit." You do not even know what will happen tomorrow! What is your life?
You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. James 4:13,14
 
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 30 09:20AM -0500

On 3/30/2021 12:28 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
 
> That is untrue.
 
> What H^ specifies depends on the nature of H, because the bulk of H^ is
> the sub-function H.
 
http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf
 
Whenever H is a simulator then H^ <is> infinitely recursive never
reaching the appended loop states whether or not the simulator always
returns a value of true or false.
 
This by itself proves that the famous:
"do the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides"
 
Now we construct a new Turing machine D with H as a
subroutine. This new TM calls H to determine what M
does when the input to M is its own description <M>.
 
Once D has determined this information, it does the
opposite.
 
That is, it rejects if M accepts and accepts
if M does not accept. (Sipser 1997:165)
 
Never has had any effect on halting problem undecidability
because no halt decider would ever return any value to H^.
 
Sipser, Michael 1997. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston:
PWS Publishing Company (165-167)
 
 
 
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com>: Mar 30 03:03PM


> Whenever H is a simulator then H^ <is> infinitely recursive never
> reaching the appended loop states whether or not the simulator always
> returns a value of true or false.
 
H is not required to be a simulator.
 
If H simply executes its input, we know that it fails to decide due to
runaway recursion: the input calls the decider, which executes its
input, which calls the decider.
 
This is freshman-level obvious.
 
The first materials I ever read about the halting problem spelled this
out, for the dummies.
 
> Never has had any effect on halting problem undecidability
 
Not returning is completely, utterly relevant to undecidability.
 
The undecidability of halting means that a decision function can
only decide at most a subset of the possible cases, not all of them.
 
Outside of the subset which it decides, it misbehaves in one of several
ways: it either returns the wrong answer, or fails to halt, or else
something else, like failing due to a division by zero or similar
problem.
 
Runaway recursion falls under "fails to halt"; it's a failed case.
 
> because no halt decider would ever return any value to H^.
 
Except in your program, where a "pure function" sometimes returns a
value and sometimes doesn't, for the same pair of visible arguments!
 
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Mar 29 09:51PM -0400

On 3/29/21 3:26 PM, Paavo Helde wrote:
 
> If you think a copy ctor does not get used in your little experiment,
> then how do you explain the output you saw? Or do you suggest the
> compiler is buggy and destructs the same object twice? (Hint: it does not.)
 
Another good thing to do when generating this sort of trace is include
the 'this' pointer (i.e. the object address) and you would see that the
two destruction are at different addresses.
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.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 3 topics

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Mar 29 06:26AM


> I could assume that no one would be so stupid to do sth. like this:
> Obj const &o = Obj();
> So if I make this assumption, what's the solution ?
 
The lifetime of the temporary will be extended to the lifetime of the
reference in that case, so it's not completely stupid.
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Mar 29 06:27AM

> Is there a way to enforce that an object
> can be only instantiated as a temporary ?
 
I'm thinking what happens if all the member functions are
rvalue-qualified, but I haven't tested if that will introduce
that limitation. Maybe not.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 29 09:00AM +0200

>> So if I make this assumption, what's the solution ?
 
> The lifetime of the temporary will be extended to the lifetime of the
> reference in that case, so it's not completely stupid.
 
You're right, and look at this:
 
#include <iostream>
 
using namespace std;
 
struct S
{
S()
{
cout << "S::S()" << endl;
}
~S()
{
cout << "~S::S()" << endl;
}
};
 
int main( int argc, char **argv )
{
S const &s = argc < 0 ? S() : S();
cout << "after destruction?" << endl;
}
 
Of course argc can never be < 0, but the compiler doesn't know that.
So look at the output:
 
S::S()
~S::S()
after destruction!
~S::S()
 
So the code destructs only one object within the statement !
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Mar 29 07:45AM -0400

On 3/29/21 3:00 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> after destruction!
> ~S::S()
 
> So the code destructs only one object within the statement !
 
You didn't define a copy constructor, so there may have been a second S
created as a copy of the first, to bind to the reference.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 29 06:56PM +0200


>> So the code destructs only one object within the statement !
 
> You didn't define a copy constructor, so there may have been a second S
> created as a copy of the first, to bind to the reference.
 
You have too much phantasy. That's for sure not required by the
standard, nor it would be realistic that any compiler would do
it that way.
Manfred <noname@add.invalid>: Mar 29 07:59PM +0200

On 3/29/2021 6:56 PM, Bonita Montero wrote:
 
> You have too much phantasy. That's for sure not required by the
> standard, nor it would be realistic that any compiler would do
> it that way.
 
It's no fantasy, that is what is happening in reality - if you use msvc
(gcc makes no copy) - you would have seen it yourself if you had a copy
(and a move) ctor defined.
[BTW ~S::S() should be S::~S()]
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Mar 29 10:26PM +0300

29.03.2021 19:56 Bonita Montero kirjutas:
 
> You have too much phantasy. That's for sure not required by the
> standard, nor it would be realistic that any compiler would do
> it that way.
 
If you think a copy ctor does not get used in your little experiment,
then how do you explain the output you saw? Or do you suggest the
compiler is buggy and destructs the same object twice? (Hint: it does not.)
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 29 05:37PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> spake the secret code
 
>"What Will Die Out Sooner C++ or C++ Programmers?" by Oleksandr Kaleniuk
 
IMO, this is just a flamey attention-seeking blog post, not a well
reasoned argument.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 29 08:17AM +0200

On 28.03.2021 15:56, David Brown wrote:
 
> Google groups is broken - amongst its many flaws (and some advantages),
> it currently will not let you post a new thread in a group with symbols
> in the name, like comp.lang.c++.
 
Wow.
 
Since I remember a very long string of similarly explanation-defying
problems over a period of 20 years, plus the infamous "wall of Google"
where it's impossible to get hold of a human there, I conclude that
Google sabotages Usenet.
 
The silly bastards (what with discrimination in the workplace there,
firing AI ethics researchers, China, so on) probably see Usenet as a
competitor to their stream of solutions that few have ever wanted.
 
 
> common free choice is Thunderbird for the client,
> news.eternal-september.org as the server. (There are many other clients
> and servers according to preference.)
 
What about Quora and other newfangled discussion arenas?
 
 
- Alf
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.

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 2 topics

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 28 12:51AM -0400

The videos below link to a theory that our solar system is not what
we've been taught, but is an Earth manufacturing system, with each
Earth being not the goal, but rather the people of the Earth being the
goal. It brings together Biblical teachings to what our science has
actually reported seeing in space in our solar system from flybys,
telescope observations, orbiting probes, etc.
 
Response to a March 27, 2021 Anton Petrov video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okv6YPu6AHQ
 
An overview of the theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGdVtSh4wRs
 
Check the descriptions for link to prior-generation videos created
during development of the demo. And visit www.3alive.org to download
the age of the sea floor maps, and to GET THE SOURCE CODE to the demo
at the GitHub link. The project is written in Visual Studio and runs
on Windows.
 
I'm basically looking for real evidence which can disprove the theory.
Hard and fast facts. I'm looking for science data or Bible facts which
make it categorically not possible. Refuting this theory with another
theory is insufficient. I want it to be wholly thwarted, or to be then
given consideration if it can't be thwarted.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
 
[Jesus Loves You]
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com>: Mar 28 06:01AM -0700

On Sunday, 28 March 2021 at 12:51:28 UTC+8, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> --
> Rick C. Hodgin
 
> [Jesus Loves You]
 
People have the right to believe the fact they like.
Unfortunately, fact is also subjective, eventually.
 
Sorry, I have to ask an irrelevant question:
I cannot post new topic. The button [New conversation] always pops up a
window sending to comp.lang.c. How can I create a New conversation
(using Linux+firefox)?
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 28 03:56PM +0200

On 28/03/2021 15:01, wij wrote:
 
> I cannot post new topic. The button [New conversation] always pops up a
> window sending to comp.lang.c. How can I create a New conversation
> (using Linux+firefox)?
 
Google groups is broken - amongst its many flaws (and some advantages),
it currently will not let you post a new thread in a group with symbols
in the name, like comp.lang.c++.
 
The best suggestion is to get a proper Usenet client and server. A
common free choice is Thunderbird for the client,
news.eternal-september.org as the server. (There are many other clients
and servers according to preference.)
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com>: Mar 28 08:41AM -0700

On Sunday, 28 March 2021 at 21:56:44 UTC+8, David Brown wrote:
> common free choice is Thunderbird for the client,
> news.eternal-september.org as the server. (There are many other clients
> and servers according to preference.)
 
Thanks for the info. I cannot make it work, I'll try it latter.
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Mar 28 11:26PM +0100

On 28/03/2021 05:51, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> make it categorically not possible. Refuting this theory with another
> theory is insufficient. I want it to be wholly thwarted, or to be then
> given consideration if it can't be thwarted.
 
It isn't a fucking theory because there is no fucking evidence backing it up.
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 28 08:46AM +0200

Is there a way to enforce that an object
can be only instantiated as a temporary ?
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 28 01:57PM +0200

On 28.03.2021 08:46, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Is there a way to enforce that an object
> can be only instantiated as a temporary ?
 
No, because you can always bind it to a reference.
 
When an object such as an operator[] proxy result shouldn't outlive the
object that it refers to one could in principle guarantee that by having
all the objects dynamically allocated and using shared_ptr. But that
impacts negatively on efficiency, clarity, debuggability etc. plus
yields more awkward usage notation. One could then much better switch to
Java, C# or Rust.
 
So just add a stern comment in the relevant place.
 
- Alf
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 28 09:05PM +0200

> No, because you can always bind it to a reference.
 
I could assume that no one would be so stupid to do sth. like this:
Obj const &o = Obj();
So if I make this assumption, what's the solution ?
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.

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 3 topics

Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Mar 27 06:57PM -0700

Hello,
 
Here is my new proverbs..
 
I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
 
Here is my new proverb:
 
"The neo-nazis and white supremacists tell you to hate and hate,
but this is immaturity of politics, because you have to know how
to adapt efficiently and not only to survive, and this needs from
us to know how to energizes the economy by attracting consumers
or by being disciplined at knowing how to be an efficient consumer
of products or services so that to energizes the economy and so that to bring the good spirit globally and locally. So as you see it needs
emotional intelligence and it needs social intelligence and it needs smartness"
 
And here is my other important proverb:
 
More political philosophy about my new other smart proverb..
 
As you have just noticed i have just written a new proverb, and
here it is:
 
"R&D (Research and development) and innovation bring
or introduce a kind of economic volatility, so you
have to know how to manage it and how to manage the
risk brought by it, so then you have to know how to manage
efficiently by not hurting good competition"
 
Note that "volatility" in the the dictionary means:
 
"A tendency to change quickly and unpredictably"
 
Read more here to notice it:
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/volatility
 
 
This new proverb of mine also says that since the R&D (Research and development) and innovation bring or introduce a kind of economic volatility, so we have also to know how to manage it carefully and efficiently with Antitrust laws, and here is the why of Antitrust laws:
 
"Antitrust laws are statutes developed by governments to protect consumers from predatory business practices and ensure fair competition. Antitrust laws are applied to a wide range of questionable business activities, including market allocation, bid rigging, price fixing, and monopolies."
 
This new proverb of mine is also related to the below problem that
brings nationalism and its economic nationalism that hurts good competition, read about it carefully in my below writing and thoughts:
 
More political philosophy about what are the big economic problems of China?..
 
I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
 
Here is the big economic problems of China:
 
First economic problem is that China is addicted to debt, look at the following video to notice it:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7DTn9PKLw
 
Second economic problem is that China has Not enough PEOPLE for the FUTURE, look at the following video to notice it:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4qFVuXEe-8
 
Third economic problem, is that China has the same problem of nationalism and its economic nationalism that hurts good competition that brings efficiency, and here it is, read it carefully:
 
 
Why is GERMANY Growing More Than JAPAN? and more about China...
 
I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and today
i will speak about: Why is GERMANY Growing More Than JAPAN?
and more..
 
We have to be more smart, i think China is also reproducing the
mistakes of Japan, because Japan has protected its large industrial
conglomerates called in Japanese "Keiretsu" and Japan has
compensated there disadvantages even if they were not efficient, and Japan didn't hesitate to give the Keiretsu all kinds of advantages and privileges even if they were not efficient, and this was not good for "competition" and Japan has "failed" by doing it.
 
Look in this video carefully to notice it:
 
Why is GERMANY Growing More Than JAPAN? - VisualPolitik
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vou96yLuWXw
 
 
I think this is the same that is happening with China, since i think
China needs an efficient mechanism that protects correct "competition" that brings good efficiency, read the following to notice it:
 
Competition: Europe's awakening in the face of foreign subsidies
 
Our state aid rules are very strict: an EU company can only receive grants of up to € 200,000 over three years. In China, the three 5G operators received 19 million euros each through the megalopolis of Shenzhen (12 million inhabitants)… According to the Wall Street Journal (article of December 25, 2019), Huawei would have benefited from 75 billion state aid via different channels, figures denied by the company. State capitalism of China obviously raises the question of the inequity of world competition ...
 
The direction the Commission is taking through the "white paper" is not this at all. The Commission does not seek to copy the Chinese model by favoring subsidized European champions. She does not deny her position in the Siemens-Alstom file. Margrethe Vestager was very clear on this point: "What we are asking for is reciprocity and conditions of equality. […] We are not going to sacrifice the advantages of competition to do the same thing that others do, namely to subsidize companies. No, because we would sacrifice the idea that the market is there to serve consumers with fairness and fair prices. "
 
Read more here:
 
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lepoint.fr%2Fpolitique%2Femmanuel-berretta%2Fconcurrence-le-reveil-de-l-europe-face-aux-subventions-etrangeres-18-06-2020-2380631_1897.php
 
Here is my other new proverb in english and french:
 
Voici mon nouveau proverbe en franΓ§ais et en anglais:
 
"La stabilitΓ© s'obtient avec la force de la perfection,
car quand vous devenez plus parfait vous augmentez
vos forces et donc vous rΓ©sistez mieux aux instabilitΓ©s,
et je pense que ceci est comme une loi de la moralitΓ©"
 
"Stability is obtained with the force of perfection,
because when you become more perfect you increase
your strenghts , then you better resist instabilities,
and I think this is like a law of Morality"
 
Read my following thoughts to understand more what is morality etc.:
 
I think i am also a philosopher, and i can also invent proverbs,
here is yet another new smart proverb of mine:
 
"There is an important difference between the appearance of a reality and the truth of a reality, this is why in science you have not to be confident with the appearances, since in science you have to understand the truth, so, to be able to understand the truth you have to know how to be patience before understanding the truth and not to rush in like a fool by lack of wisdom "
 
And here is another proverb of mine:
 
"Wich one has to precede, being able to reason correctly
or to rush in like a fool without being able to reason correctly? when you are able to answer correctly this question, you will understand a very important principle that makes you much more wise."
 
Here is another new proverb of mine..
 
"A wise man is by "logical" analogy like the person that knows how to prepare a good meal from ingredients, since a wise man is the one that knows how to prepare a well organized society or well organized global world from the people."
 
And here is my other new proverb:
 
Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting"
 
Read here:
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection
 
 
This is the definition of perfection above that I use below in my explanation of my new proverb.
 
 
Here is all my explanation of my new proverb below:
 
 
My new proverb comes to me from the essence of morality that I explained to you in my political philosophy that I wrote in English, since in morality we are pushed towards the pretty tomorrow because we are aware of this pretty perfume that is the perfection that pushes us or encourages us to be or allows us to become perfect or greatly perfect.
 
 
Read about it here on my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality:
 
 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4
 
 
So here is my new proverb:
 
 
"Life is like the pretty perfume that calls us to be a pretty tomorrow!"
 
 
So notice carefully my smart play on words in my new proverb, i think it's smart, and you have to know that the future perfection depends on the present perfection, so when today we are responsibility to be the pretty perfection so that to build the pretty tomorrow, then the pretty perfection of today is part of the pretty tomorrow, and the "pretty perfume" in my new proverb is also the today pretty perfection, but you have to understand the symbolic which allows us to say that being this part of the pretty tomorrow is also like being the pretty tomorrow. It is what makes it a smart proverb.
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Mar 27 06:10PM -0700

Hello...
 
 
About supercharging your bash workflows with GNU parallel..
 
I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
 
I invite you to read the following article:
 
How to supercharge your bash workflows with GNU parallel
 
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-supercharge-your-bash-workflows-with-gnu-parallel-53aab0aea141/
 
I think the GNU parallel is not the right tool, because
you have to abstract it much more correctly so that to avoid
thread and process switching that hurts scalability, so then in case
of GNU parallel you are required to take a look at the bash scripts source code and understand them so that to avoid excessive thread and process switching that hurts scalability, so i think that GNU parallel is not the right tool, so you have to use parallel "processing" between
bash scripts so that to easy the job of managing scalability.
 
So i invite you to read my following thoughts about my new software inventions..
 
And my today software invention is the following:
 
You have to know that a Turing-complete system can be proven mathematically to be capable of performing any possible calculation or computer program, and bash shell for Linux and Windows are Turing-complete, and even if bash shell is not python, it is a minimalist language that is especially designed for administrators of operating systems, but i have noticed that bash shell is not suited for for parallel programming, this is why i am enhancing it with my
scalable algorithms so that to support sophisticated parallel programming on both Linux and Windows that permits it to scale much better on RAIDs and on multicores. So i am also writing a book about my enhancement to bash shell with my scalable algorithms so that to help others be efficient in bash shell programming and efficient in operating system administration, and of course i will sell my book, so i don't think you need python since python doesn't come with my scalable algorithms that will enhance bash for Linux and Windows, and i think operating systems administrators don't need python since it is
not suited for operating system administrators since it is
not a minimalist language as bash for Linux and Windows.
 
You can read more about bash shell from here:
 
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2893519/perl-python-ruby-are-nice-bash-is-where-its-at.html
 
Also my next software invention is the following:
 
More philosophy about what is artificial intelligence and more..
 
I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and when you are smart you will easily understand artificial intelligence, this is why i am finding artificial intelligence easy to learn, i think to be able to understand
artificial intelligence you have to understand reasoning with energy minimization, like with PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), but
you have to be smart since the Population based algorithm has to guarantee the optimal convergence, and this is why i am learning
you how to do it(read below), i think that GA(genetic algorithm) is
good for teaching it, but GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and after learning how to do reasoning with energy minimization in artificial intelligence, you have to understand what is transfer learning in artificial intelligence with PathNet or such, this transfer learning permits to train faster and require less labeled data, also PathNET is much more powerful since also it is higher level abstraction in artificial intelligence..
 
Read about it here:
 
https://mattturck.com/frontierai/
 
 
And read about PathNet here:
 
https://medium.com/@thoszymkowiak/deepmind-just-published-a-mind-blowing-paper-pathnet-f72b1ed38d46
 
 
More about artificial intelligence..
 
I think one of the most important part in artificial intelligence is reasoning with energy minimization, it is the one that i am working on right now, see the following video to understand more about it:
 
Yann LeCun: Can Neural Networks Reason?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfwNEY826I&t=250s
 
I think that since i have just understood much more artificial intelligence, i will soon show you my next Open source software project that implement a powerful much more scalable Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful much more scalable Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO, and i will write an article that explain much more artificial intelligence and what is smartness and what is consciousness and self-awareness..
 
And in only one day i have just learned "much" more artificial intelligence, i have read the following article about Particle Swarm Optimization and i have understood it:
 
Artificial Intelligence - Particle Swarm Optimization
 
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2011/august/artificial-intelligence-particle-swarm-optimization
 
But i have just noticed that the above implementation doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence.
 
So here is how to guarantee the optimal convergence in PSO:
 
Clerc and Kennedy in (Trelea 2003) propose a constriction coefficient parameter selection guidelines in order to guarantee the optimal convergence, here is how to do it with PSO:
 
v(t+1) = k*[(v(t) + (c1 * r1 * (p(t) – x(t)) + (c2 * r2 * (g(t) – x(t))]
 
x(t+1) = x(t) + v(t+1)
 
constriction coefficient parameter is:
 
k = 2/abs(2-phi-sqrt(phi^2-(4*phi)))
 
k:=2/abs((2-4.1)-(0.640)) = 0.729
 
phi = c1 + c2
 
To guarantee the optimal convergence use:
 
c1 = c2 = 2.05
 
phi = 4.1 => k equal to 0.729
 
w=0.7298
 
Population size = 60;
 
 
Also i have noticed that GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and SA(Simulated annealing) and Hill Climbing are much less powerful since they perform only exploitation.
 
In general, any metaheuristic should perform two main searching capabilities (Exploration and Exploitation). Population based algorithms ( or many solutions ) such as GA, PSO, ACO, or ABC, performs both Exploration and Exploitation, while Single-Based Algorithm such as SA(Simulated annealing), Hill Climbing, performs the exploitation only.
 
In this case, more exploitation and less exploration increases the chances for trapping in local optima. Because the algorithm does not have the ability to search in another position far from the current best solution ( which is Exploration).
 
Simulated annealing starts in one valley and typically ends in the lowest point of the same valley. Whereas swarms start in many different places of the mountain range and are searching for the lowest point in many valleys simultaneously.
 
And in my next Open source software project i will implement a powerful
much more scalable Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful much more scalable Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO.
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Mar 27 05:30PM -0700

Hello,
 
 
Here is my new software inventions..
 
I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..
 
And my today software invention is the following:
 
You have to know that a Turing-complete system can be proven mathematically to be capable of performing any possible calculation or computer program, and bash shell for Linux and Windows are Turing-complete, and even if bash shell is not python, it is a minimalist language that is especially designed for administrators of operating systems, but i have noticed that bash shell is not suited for for parallel programming, this is why i am enhancing it with my
scalable algorithms so that to support sophisticated parallel programming on both Linux and Windows that permits it to scale much better on RAIDs and on multicores. So i am also writing a book about my enhancement to bash shell with my scalable algorithms so that to help others be efficient in bash shell programming and efficient in operating system administration, and of course i will sell my book, so i don't think you need python since python doesn't come with my scalable algorithms that will enhance bash for Linux and Windows, and i think operating systems administrators don't need python since it is
not suited for operating system administrators since it is
not a minimalist language as bash for Linux and Windows.
 
You can read more about bash shell from here:
 
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2893519/perl-python-ruby-are-nice-bash-is-where-its-at.html
 
Also my next software invention is the following:
 
More philosophy about what is artificial intelligence and more..
 
I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and when you are smart you will easily understand artificial intelligence, this is why i am finding artificial intelligence easy to learn, i think to be able to understand
artificial intelligence you have to understand reasoning with energy minimization, like with PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), but
you have to be smart since the Population based algorithm has to guarantee the optimal convergence, and this is why i am learning
you how to do it(read below), i think that GA(genetic algorithm) is
good for teaching it, but GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and after learning how to do reasoning with energy minimization in artificial intelligence, you have to understand what is transfer learning in artificial intelligence with PathNet or such, this transfer learning permits to train faster and require less labeled data, also PathNET is much more powerful since also it is higher level abstraction in artificial intelligence..
 
Read about it here:
 
https://mattturck.com/frontierai/
 
 
And read about PathNet here:
 
https://medium.com/@thoszymkowiak/deepmind-just-published-a-mind-blowing-paper-pathnet-f72b1ed38d46
 
 
More about artificial intelligence..
 
I think one of the most important part in artificial intelligence is reasoning with energy minimization, it is the one that i am working on right now, see the following video to understand more about it:
 
Yann LeCun: Can Neural Networks Reason?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfwNEY826I&t=250s
 
I think that since i have just understood much more artificial intelligence, i will soon show you my next Open source software project that implement a powerful much more scalable Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful much more scalable Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO, and i will write an article that explain much more artificial intelligence and what is smartness and what is consciousness and self-awareness..
 
And in only one day i have just learned "much" more artificial intelligence, i have read the following article about Particle Swarm Optimization and i have understood it:
 
Artificial Intelligence - Particle Swarm Optimization
 
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2011/august/artificial-intelligence-particle-swarm-optimization
 
But i have just noticed that the above implementation doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence.
 
So here is how to guarantee the optimal convergence in PSO:
 
Clerc and Kennedy in (Trelea 2003) propose a constriction coefficient parameter selection guidelines in order to guarantee the optimal convergence, here is how to do it with PSO:
 
v(t+1) = k*[(v(t) + (c1 * r1 * (p(t) – x(t)) + (c2 * r2 * (g(t) – x(t))]
 
x(t+1) = x(t) + v(t+1)
 
constriction coefficient parameter is:
 
k = 2/abs(2-phi-sqrt(phi^2-(4*phi)))
 
k:=2/abs((2-4.1)-(0.640)) = 0.729
 
phi = c1 + c2
 
To guarantee the optimal convergence use:
 
c1 = c2 = 2.05
 
phi = 4.1 => k equal to 0.729
 
w=0.7298
 
Population size = 60;
 
 
Also i have noticed that GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and SA(Simulated annealing) and Hill Climbing are much less powerful since they perform only exploitation.
 
In general, any metaheuristic should perform two main searching capabilities (Exploration and Exploitation). Population based algorithms ( or many solutions ) such as GA, PSO, ACO, or ABC, performs both Exploration and Exploitation, while Single-Based Algorithm such as SA(Simulated annealing), Hill Climbing, performs the exploitation only.
 
In this case, more exploitation and less exploration increases the chances for trapping in local optima. Because the algorithm does not have the ability to search in another position far from the current best solution ( which is Exploration).
 
Simulated annealing starts in one valley and typically ends in the lowest point of the same valley. Whereas swarms start in many different places of the mountain range and are searching for the lowest point in many valleys simultaneously.
 
And in my next Open source software project i will implement a powerful
much more scalable Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful much more scalable Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO.
 
 
 
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.

Friday, March 26, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic

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.

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 2 topics

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 25 05:44PM -0500

On 3/25/2021 3:49 PM, AndrΓ© G. Isaak wrote:
> equivalent, then any *computation* defined in the 'x86 language' can be
> performed by a Turing Machine. But not everything expressed in x86 code
> constitutes a computation.
 
If my halt deciding computation can be performed on a Turing machine
then it necessarily meets the formal definition of a computation, right?
 
When you try to tell me that black cats are not black I know that what
you say is not true.
 
>> My halt decider is expressed in the x86 language
 
> But fails to meet the formal definition of a computation.
 
This would mean that my halt deciding computation cannot be performed on
a Turing machine, right?
 
Since my halt deciding computation can be translated into the RASP
computational model and performed on a RASP machine this would prove
that it can be performed by a Turing machine, right?
 
 
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
MrSpook_tlp4tgh2l3@8ihqvjzp9.gov: Mar 25 08:58AM

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:25:24 +0000
> typedef decltype(mulGuts(U1(), U2())) Result;
>};
 
>but it does creep and it is horrible.
 
I can't help thinking that if you need syntax that mangled perhaps you should
revisit your design.
James Lothian <jameslothian1@gmail.com>: Mar 25 01:57PM


>> but it does creep and it is horrible.
 
> I can't help thinking that if you need syntax that mangled perhaps you should
> revisit your design.
 
I wouldn't need syntax as mangled as this if I weren't working around a
deficiency in VS2019.
 
James
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.

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 1 topic

"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 24 03:21PM +0100

On 24.03.2021 00:22, James Lothian wrote:
>     LM lm;
>     return 0;
> }
 
Looks like a Visual C++ bug. And it looks like a bug related to
parameter pack handling, and not related to (lack of) two-phase template
compilation. I think you should report it.
 
Workaround:
 
---------------------------------------------
template< int L, int M >
class Unit {};
 
template< class U1, class U2 >
struct Mul;
 
template< int L1, int L2, int R1, int R2 >
struct Mul<Unit<L1, L2>, Unit<R1, R2> >
{
using Result = Unit<L1 + R1, L2 + R2>;
};
 
using Length = Unit<1, 0>;
using Mass = Unit<0, 1>;
 
using LM = typename Mul<Length, Mass>::Result;
 
auto main() -> int
{
LM lm;
(void) lm;
}
---------------------------------------------
 
However, to my eyes the units computation doesn't seem correct. I don't
know if Boost Units does this correctly, but I think it must. So I
recommend using Boost Units instead.
 
<url: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_0/doc/html/boost_units.html>
 
 
- Alf
James Lothian <jameslothian1@gmail.com>: Mar 24 07:25PM

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
 
> Looks like a Visual C++ bug. And it looks like a bug related to
> parameter pack handling, and not related to (lack of) two-phase template
> compilation. I think you should report it.
 
Thank you, that's pretty much what I thought.
> Workaround:
 
This is a much distilled-down version of something a good bit
bigger. I know I can work round this by avoiding the parameter pack and
fixing the number of dimensions in a Unit, but this means that when I
add another dimension to my units, I have to modify Mul (and Div, and
Exp, and so on). I've found that the following creeping horror works:
 
template <class U1, class U2>
struct Mul
{
private:
template <int... L, int... R>
static auto mulGuts(Unit<L...>, Unit<R...>)
{
return Unit<L + R...>();
}
 
public:
typedef decltype(mulGuts(U1(), U2())) Result;
};
 
but it does creep and it is horrible.
 
> know if Boost Units does this correctly, but I think it must. So I
> recommend using Boost Units instead.
 
> <url: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_65_0/doc/html/boost_units.html>
 
But where's the fun in that :-)
 
Thanks,
James
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.