Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #108617 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 427 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-13 20:51 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-13 23:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-14 07:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 00:06 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-14 22:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 11:22 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-16 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-17 10:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 00:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-15 00:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-15 03:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-17 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-17 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 00:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 01:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 13:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 14:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 19:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 18:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 08:52 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:21 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 14:54 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 18:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 01:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:28 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 19:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:15 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-21 14:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 16:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-21 13:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:26 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-21 20:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-21 18:49 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 20:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 07:44 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 15:37 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:55 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-22 20:53 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 10:53 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-23 21:39 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture BGB-Alt <bohannonindustriesllc@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 16:00 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 17:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 11:46 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 20:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 14:35 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:19 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:32 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:46 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:47 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:03 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:07 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 15:51 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-24 07:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2024-09-24 15:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-10-02 17:58 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-10-03 10:25 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:49 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-24 11:45 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-10-12 08:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> - 2024-09-23 11:33 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 02:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 10:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 19:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 18:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:37 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-23 16:30 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 19:04 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-18 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 22:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 00:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-19 14:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:01 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 09:26 +0200
Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-19 09:00 +0100
Re: Perception of lag (Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:54 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-20 09:55 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 13:19 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:46 +0000
Local (predictive?) echoing (was: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?) Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 10:57 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 20:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 15:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 22:58 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-21 22:42 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:29 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 22:06 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:34 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:06 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 00:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 04:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 06:52 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 02:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-20 21:06 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:09 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 16:58 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 15:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 21:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 00:34 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-24 14:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 17:50 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-23 22:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 11:51 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 03:41 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 15:21 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:26 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 22:57 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-29 23:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 05:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2024-09-18 20:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 10:44 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 08:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-19 16:25 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-19 19:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 09:37 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-09-20 11:18 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 19:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 11:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:14 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-24 10:56 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-20 14:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 02:29 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:06 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 03:17 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-23 20:30 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 10:36 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:51 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 10:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 07:48 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:41 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? EricP <ThatWouldBeTelling@thevillage.com> - 2024-09-28 13:16 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 19:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-30 13:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-28 19:24 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-28 21:50 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 13:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:15 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-25 10:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-27 18:43 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-27 23:00 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:47 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 23:15 +0300
Re: physics is hard, was Intel exceptionally John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-28 21:16 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-27 21:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-28 17:46 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 19:01 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 02:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 04:04 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:13 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-29 14:11 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-29 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-29 22:09 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2024-09-30 16:35 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 20:13 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-30 03:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 04:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-30 05:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-30 19:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 03:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 10:48 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 08:57 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-10-01 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 18:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-01 20:56 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:11 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 08:50 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-01 22:07 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-02 09:20 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-02 21:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:02 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2024-10-07 12:59 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-12 07:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-01 23:33 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 01:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-03 10:23 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-04 11:10 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-04 17:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-05 11:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 17:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-05 18:24 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-06 10:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:47 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-06 23:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-10-07 00:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 01:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 11:32 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-10-07 17:14 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-08 09:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-10-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-06 12:07 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-06 01:12 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-10-07 09:29 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-10-07 12:45 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-10-07 19:01 +0100
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-07 06:37 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-03 00:36 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-10-01 02:39 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 00:43 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-21 17:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 03:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-28 02:30 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-28 02:44 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-28 10:28 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-28 07:34 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 11:48 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 12:58 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-22 14:26 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 14:39 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:44 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 10:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-23 21:13 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 15:53 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:01 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-23 13:59 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:56 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 14:24 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:38 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-23 19:08 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 01:00 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 08:17 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-09-23 05:56 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 18:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:50 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 00:54 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 23:49 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 11:35 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Terje Mathisen <terje.mathisen@tmsw.no> - 2024-09-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:23 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:12 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:48 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 21:35 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:43 +0000
Re: quanta vs AI, not Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-20 00:59 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 20:53 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-20 01:08 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-20 21:40 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:22 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 13:43 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 23:55 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 17:13 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:29 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:01 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:31 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:26 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-22 01:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-21 21:02 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-22 07:21 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-22 12:41 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-22 13:40 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-22 12:12 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Josh Vanderhoof <x@y.z> - 2024-09-20 19:08 -0400
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2024-09-21 10:40 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? BGB <cr88192@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 17:08 -0500
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:08 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 16:18 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 20:15 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 02:54 +0300
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 00:42 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:45 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:37 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:11 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2024-09-19 08:20 -1000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-19 19:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 11:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 14:50 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:35 +0300
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-20 15:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 01:01 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-20 05:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-21 08:36 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-21 12:19 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 10:24 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 12:42 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-23 12:32 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-23 16:35 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-24 00:53 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Bill Findlay <findlaybill@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2024-09-24 03:34 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 03:05 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-24 10:58 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 17:17 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:15 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-24 14:11 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:00 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-09-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-29 01:33 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-24 17:38 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-24 18:02 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:16 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 11:38 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 18:23 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:14 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-25 00:12 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2024-11-04 09:43 +0100
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-11-04 15:51 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-20 14:02 +0200
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 09:44 -0700
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) - 2024-09-20 17:29 +0000
Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-20 12:32 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-18 10:41 +0200
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2024-09-18 20:41 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:43 +0000
Re: Microsoft financials, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:18 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2024-09-18 20:57 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 23:45 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-09-19 09:27 +0200
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2024-09-17 21:57 -0700
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-09-18 06:46 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 15:51 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2024-09-18 16:28 +0000
Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2024-09-18 17:00 +0000
Page 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 02:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdfnfn$2ivg0$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109332 |
On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > The false religion of “science” failed. Science is not a religion. Science, unlike religion, works whether you believe in it or not. You can, very literally, bet your life on it. Not something you can say of any religion ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <093e6a0a90222fecc491d586ba91e01f@novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109337 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 2:40:55 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > >> The false religion of “science” failed. > > Science is not a religion. Science, unlike religion, works whether you > believe in it or not. Science, unlike religion, adjusts to the current set of facts--whatever they may be. > You can, very literally, bet your life on it. Not something you can say > of any religion ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 08:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdgc7e$2lk2d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109338 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 03:48:53 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 2:40:55 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> Science is not a religion. Science, unlike religion, works whether you >> believe in it or not. > > Science, unlike religion, adjusts to the current set of facts--whatever > they may be. There is this assumption that the facts of the behaviour of electricity haven’t changed since yesterday -- that the way we calculate the voltages and currents and resistances still work exactly as they did before, so when you next reach for that power switch, it will activate the appliance you expected it to activate, and won’t suddenly burst out of the wall and kill you. That’s what I mean by “betting your life on the correctness of science”. Do you say a little incantation to the god(s) of your choice each time before touching that switch? Pour out a libation? Sacrifice a goat? No -- you simply do it without thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 10:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdgd0b$2lih8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109338 |
On 01/10/2024 05:48, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 2:40:55 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:58:46 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: >> >>> The false religion of “science” failed. >> >> Science is not a religion. Science, unlike religion, works whether you >> believe in it or not. > > Science, unlike religion, adjusts to the current set of facts--whatever > they may be. > It would be better to say that science adjusts to the current set of /evidence/ - our measurements of facts. The orbit of Mercury around the Sun is a fact, and has not changed over the centuries. Our measurements of it have changed as our experimental tools improved, and science changed accordingly (from Newtonian gravity to relativity). Sometimes new evidence directly disproves old theories or conjectures (such as the flogistan theory of fire), other times it gives more a accurate model while leaving the old one as a reasonable approximation in many situations (like gravity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 08:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdg6fs$2ko7g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109332 |
On 30/09/2024 21:58, Brett wrote: > MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 4:11:18 +0000, Brett wrote: >>> >>> Based off of Hubble research 1000’s of theories were proposed to get a >>> Nobel prize, then the James Web telescope launched and all those >>> theories went into the toilet. >>> >>> Had one of those theories been in the ball park you would have declared >>> success for predictive science. Ignoring the 999 failures, but >>> “science”completely failed. >> >> just because there were thousands of conjectures that fail to meet the >> rigors of science does not mean that science has failed. > > The false religion of “science” failed. > Science is not a religion. And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." "Science does not know everything. Science /knows/ it does not know everything - otherwise we'd stop doing it." (That was Dara Ó Briain.) > Yes real science actually advances this way. > It's apparent from your postings that you have no concept of what "real science" is, or how it advances. You look at modern science, and you see there are gaps - things that no one is explaining properly. The scientific approach is to look at these holes and see opportunities to learn more and fill them in. Perhaps someone will fulfil the dream of all scientists, and prove an existing theory wrong. But your anti-scientific approach is to see these gaps or flaws and think that means scientists are lying to us, or that it's /all/ wrong. Then you listen to the first crackpot trisectors or conman that comes along, and happily give them your worship and your money just because they re-enforce your paranoia. It is flat-earthers like you that make it very difficult for real scientists who do come up with unusual ideas - they are brought low by the weight of supporters like you who follow them simply because their ideas are different, not because they understand the science involved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 15:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdh5q8$2pnkp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109345 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: > Science is not a religion. > > And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is > about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory is in trouble. For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so people generally accept it. But people still try to think of experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate at predicting actual behavior. Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. The main problem is with people who try to sell something as science which isn't, of which there are also many examples. "Scientific Marxism" is one such example. It is sometimes hard for an outsider to differentiate between actual scientific theories which have been tested, and people just claiming that "the science says so" when they have not been applying the scientific method faithfully, either through ignorance or through bad intent. There is also the problem of many people not knowing statistics well enough and misapplying it, for example in social or medical science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 18:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <40853b34aae592d6cd8a19f017e3f7eb@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109354 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: > >> Science is not a religion. >> >> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." > > That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. > They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments > which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never > _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it > will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try > to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory > is in trouble. > > For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never > proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a > very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so > people generally accept it. But people still try to think of > experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. > > Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it > philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate > at predicting actual behavior. > > Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal proofs. > > The main problem is with people who try to sell something as > science which isn't, of which there are also many examples. The colloquial person thinks theory and conjecture are essentially equal. As in: "I just invented this theory". No, you just: "Invented a conjecture." you have to have substantial evidence to go from conjecture to theory. > "Scientific Marxism" is one such example. It is sometimes hard > for an outsider to differentiate between actual scientific theories > which have been tested, and people just claiming that "the science > says so" when they have not been applying the scientific method > faithfully, either through ignorance or through bad intent. > > There is also the problem of many people not knowing statistics well > enough and misapplying it, for example in social or medical science. Or politics....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdhgle$2rium$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109358 |
On 01/10/2024 20:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >> >>> Science is not a religion. >>> >>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >>> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." >> >> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. >> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments >> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never >> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it >> will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try >> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory >> is in trouble. >> >> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never >> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a >> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so >> people generally accept it. But people still try to think of >> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. >> >> Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it >> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate >> at predicting actual behavior. >> >> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. > > Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal > proofs. It's worth remembering that mathematical proofs always start at a base - a set of axioms. And these axioms are assumed, not proven. >> >> The main problem is with people who try to sell something as >> science which isn't, of which there are also many examples. > > The colloquial person thinks theory and conjecture are > essentially equal. As in: "I just invented this theory". > No, you just: "Invented a conjecture." you have to have > substantial evidence to go from conjecture to theory. > I think you need evidence, justification, and a good basis for proposing something before it can even be called a "conjecture" in science. You don't start off with a conjecture - you start with an idea, and have a long way to go to reach a "scientific theory", passing through "conjecture" and "hypothesis" on the way. >> "Scientific Marxism" is one such example. It is sometimes hard >> for an outsider to differentiate between actual scientific theories >> which have been tested, and people just claiming that "the science >> says so" when they have not been applying the scientific method >> faithfully, either through ignorance or through bad intent. >> >> There is also the problem of many people not knowing statistics well >> enough and misapplying it, for example in social or medical science. > > Or politics.... Or even in hard sciences - scientists are humans too, and some of them get their statistics wildly wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eef41ee7c5ed124a19f0f849f1bf2206@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109361 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:56:46 +0000, David Brown wrote: > On 01/10/2024 20:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >>> >>>> Science is not a religion. >>>> >>>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >>>> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." >>> >>> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. >>> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments >>> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never >>> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it >>> will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try >>> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory >>> is in trouble. >>> >>> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never >>> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a >>> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so >>> people generally accept it. But people still try to think of >>> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. >>> >>> Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it >>> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate >>> at predicting actual behavior. >>> >>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. >> >> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal >> proofs. > > It's worth remembering that mathematical proofs always start at a base - > a set of axioms. And these axioms are assumed, not proven. > >>> >>> The main problem is with people who try to sell something as >>> science which isn't, of which there are also many examples. >> >> The colloquial person thinks theory and conjecture are >> essentially equal. As in: "I just invented this theory". >> No, you just: "Invented a conjecture." you have to have >> substantial evidence to go from conjecture to theory. >> > > I think you need evidence, justification, and a good basis for proposing > something before it can even be called a "conjecture" in science. You > don't start off with a conjecture - you start with an idea, and have a > long way to go to reach a "scientific theory", passing through > "conjecture" and "hypothesis" on the way. I do not disagree with that. Sorry if I implied anything else. >>> "Scientific Marxism" is one such example. It is sometimes hard >>> for an outsider to differentiate between actual scientific theories >>> which have been tested, and people just claiming that "the science >>> says so" when they have not been applying the scientific method >>> faithfully, either through ignorance or through bad intent. >>> >>> There is also the problem of many people not knowing statistics well >>> enough and misapplying it, for example in social or medical science. >> >> Or politics.... > > Or even in hard sciences - scientists are humans too, and some of them > get their statistics wildly wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 08:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdiqev$34tqa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109368 |
On 01/10/2024 23:11, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:56:46 +0000, David Brown wrote: > >> On 01/10/2024 20:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >>> >>> The colloquial person thinks theory and conjecture are >>> essentially equal. As in: "I just invented this theory". >>> No, you just: "Invented a conjecture." you have to have >>> substantial evidence to go from conjecture to theory. >>> >> >> I think you need evidence, justification, and a good basis for proposing >> something before it can even be called a "conjecture" in science. You >> don't start off with a conjecture - you start with an idea, and have a >> long way to go to reach a "scientific theory", passing through >> "conjecture" and "hypothesis" on the way. > > I do not disagree with that. Sorry if I implied anything else. > I read your post as saying that if someone says "I have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese", it is actually a conjecture, not a theory. I fully agree that it is not a theory - at least, not a scientific theory. But I would also not even call it a conjecture since it is has no justification or basis, and is easily disproved (if the moon is made of cheese, it is /grey/ cheese, not /green/ cheese!). It is no more than an idea or claim - to be a "conjecture", it needs to have a viable path towards a theory (though it may fail along that path). But we absolutely agree on "theory". The issue turns up regularly with Bible literalists who think the theory of evolution is "just a theory", and should have no more place in school curriculums than the so-called "theory of intelligent design". They are mixing up the scientific term "theory" with the colloquial non-scientific usage - and the same bad reasoning suggests that alongside the "Newtonian theory of gravity" we should be teaching the "theory of intelligent falling".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 22:07 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <lm2vj6Frf3oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #109358 |
On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >> >>> Science is not a religion. >>> >>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >>> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." >> >> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. >> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments >> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never >> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it >> will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try >> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory >> is in trouble. >> >> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never >> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a >> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so >> people generally accept it. But people still try to think of >> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. >> >> Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it >> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate >> at predicting actual behavior. >> >> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. > > Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal > proofs. Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/, which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and needing modification. An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of "observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics. A list of conjectures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_conjectures
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <de251b3b38495a7d423015a83cc842cb@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109363 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:07:18 +0000, Niklas Holsti wrote: > On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >>> >>>> Science is not a religion. >>>> >>>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >>>> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." >>> >>> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. >>> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments >>> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never >>> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it >>> will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try >>> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory >>> is in trouble. >>> >>> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never >>> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a >>> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so >>> people generally accept it. But people still try to think of >>> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. >>> >>> Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it >>> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate >>> at predicting actual behavior. >>> >>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. >> >> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal >> proofs. > > > Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in > mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/, > which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and > needing modification. Mathematical conjectures have a spectrum of "solidity" often more solid in one branch of math than in another. > An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of > "observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries > or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving > energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this > sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics. The solution to Fermat's last theorem used a large series of then conjectures in order to demonstrate that the solution was correct. > A list of conjectures: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_conjectures
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdis8f$34tqa$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109367 |
On 01/10/2024 23:09, MitchAlsup1 wrote: > On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:07:18 +0000, Niklas Holsti wrote: > >> On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: >>> >>>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. >>> >>> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal >>> proofs. >> >> >> Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in >> mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/, >> which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and >> needing modification. > > Mathematical conjectures have a spectrum of "solidity" often more > solid in one branch of math than in another. > I am not entirely sure what you mean by that. A conjecture is a hypothesis that you have reasonable justification for believing is true, but which is not proven to be true (then it becomes a theorem). Some conjectures have been confirmed empirically to a large degree (such as the Riemann hypothesis) which is not proof, but can be seen as strengthening the conjecture. Others, such as the continuum hypothesis, not only have no empirical evidence but have been proven to be independent of our usual ZF set theory axioms - no evidence either way can be found. There are also some mathematicians who have a philosophy of viewing some kinds of proofs as "better" than others. Some dislike "proof by computer", and don't consider the four-colour theorem to be a proven theorem yet. Others are "constructivists" - they are not happy with merely a proof that some solution must exist, they only consider the hypothesis properly proven when they have a construction for a solution. In that sense, a given conjecture may have more "solidity" in one /school/ of mathematics than in another. But I don't quite see how a single conjecture could have more "solidity" in one /branch/ of mathematics than another. An example or two might help. >> An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of >> "observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries >> or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving >> energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this >> sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics. > > The solution to Fermat's last theorem used a large series of > then conjectures in order to demonstrate that the solution > was correct. > Yes - and then those supporting conjectures were proven and morphed into theorems, with the knock-on effect of making everything higher up a proven theorem. This is very common in mathematics - you develop conditional proofs building on assuming a conjecture is true, and then you (or someone else) goes back and proves that conjecture later, or perhaps finds another path around that part. For many theorems in mathematics, the complete proof is a /very/ long and winding path.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-02 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <598bbc1ea2164aa5ef8c0c573d885540@www.novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #109374 |
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 7:20:47 +0000, David Brown wrote:
> On 01/10/2024 23:09, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:07:18 +0000, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal
>>>> proofs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in
>>> mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/,
>>> which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and
>>> needing modification.
>>
>> Mathematical conjectures have a spectrum of "solidity" often more
>> solid in one branch of math than in another.
>>
>
> I am not entirely sure what you mean by that.
>
> A conjecture is a hypothesis that you have reasonable justification for
> believing is true, but which is not proven to be true (then it becomes a
> theorem). Some conjectures have been confirmed empirically to a large
> degree (such as the Riemann hypothesis) which is not proof, but can be
> seen as strengthening the conjecture. Others, such as the continuum
> hypothesis, not only have no empirical evidence but have been proven to
> be independent of our usual ZF set theory axioms - no evidence either
> way can be found.
Other conjectures had a century or more between being conjectured with
several "things they got right" before finally drifting towards a proof
or drifting towards disproof. The width of the drift is exactly the
spectrum I stated.
> There are also some mathematicians who have a philosophy of viewing some
> kinds of proofs as "better" than others. Some dislike "proof by
> computer", and don't consider the four-colour theorem to be a proven
> theorem yet.
Over time proofs drift towards being an axiom (at least in their little
branch of math--which might not be axiomatic in other branches). others
start out proven and drift to the point there are only proven in one
or several branches of math.
> Others are "constructivists" - they are not happy with
> merely a proof that some solution must exist, they only consider the
> hypothesis properly proven when they have a construction for a solution.
> In that sense, a given conjecture may have more "solidity" in one
> /school/ of mathematics than in another.
that is what I am talking about--it is all a big multidimensional
spectrum of {proof or conjecture}
>
> But I don't quite see how a single conjecture could have more "solidity"
> in one /branch/ of mathematics than another. An example or two might
> help.
A conjecture/proof in ring-sum math may not work at all in
Real-Numbers. They are different branches in the space of Math.
Some proofs only work in Cartesian Multi-D spaces and fail in
manifold spaces.
>
>>> An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of
>>> "observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries
>>> or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving
>>> energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this
>>> sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics.
>>
>> The solution to Fermat's last theorem used a large series of
>> then conjectures in order to demonstrate that the solution
>> was correct.
>>
>
> Yes - and then those supporting conjectures were proven and morphed into
> theorems, with the knock-on effect of making everything higher up a
> proven theorem.
>
> This is very common in mathematics - you develop conditional proofs
> building on assuming a conjecture is true, and then you (or someone
> else) goes back and proves that conjecture later, or perhaps finds
> another path around that part. For many theorems in mathematics, the
> complete proof is a /very/ long and winding path.
The long and winding road .. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 10:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vdlj32$3kq50$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109382 |
On 02/10/2024 23:45, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 7:20:47 +0000, David Brown wrote:
>
>> On 01/10/2024 23:09, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 19:07:18 +0000, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal
>>>>> proofs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in
>>>> mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of
>>>> /conjectures/,
>>>> which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and
>>>> needing modification.
>>>
>>> Mathematical conjectures have a spectrum of "solidity" often more
>>> solid in one branch of math than in another.
>>>
>>
>> I am not entirely sure what you mean by that.
>>
>> A conjecture is a hypothesis that you have reasonable justification for
>> believing is true, but which is not proven to be true (then it becomes a
>> theorem). Some conjectures have been confirmed empirically to a large
>> degree (such as the Riemann hypothesis) which is not proof, but can be
>> seen as strengthening the conjecture. Others, such as the continuum
>> hypothesis, not only have no empirical evidence but have been proven to
>> be independent of our usual ZF set theory axioms - no evidence either
>> way can be found.
>
> Other conjectures had a century or more between being conjectured with
> several "things they got right" before finally drifting towards a proof
> or drifting towards disproof. The width of the drift is exactly the
> spectrum I stated.
Okay, so that was what you meant. Fair enough.
Many conjectures have not "drifted" significantly one way or the other -
and some have "drifted" towards an expectation (or even a proof) that
they are unprovable one way or the other.
>
>> There are also some mathematicians who have a philosophy of viewing some
>> kinds of proofs as "better" than others. Some dislike "proof by
>> computer", and don't consider the four-colour theorem to be a proven
>> theorem yet.
>
> Over time proofs drift towards being an axiom (at least in their little
> branch of math--which might not be axiomatic in other branches). others
> start out proven and drift to the point there are only proven in one
> or several branches of math.
That paragraph, on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense to me.
An "axiom" is something that you take as true without any kind of proof
- it is how you bootstrap mathematics. "Two sets are equal if and only
if they they have the same elements" is an axiom of ZF set theory. "Any
two distinct points can be connected by a unique straight line" is an
axiom of Euclidian geometry.
Axioms are what you /start/ with - proven theorems do not become axioms
over time!
And if a theorem is proven, then it is proven based on a set of axioms.
It is not dependent on any particular branch of mathematics. And it
does not "drift" towards being unproven. It can happen that mistakes
are found in what was previously thought to be correct proves, but that
is rare and there is no "drift". It is also certainly the case that if
you change the axioms you used to prove something, then it is not (yet)
proven with the new set of axioms. Some things can be proven if the
continuum hypothesis is taken as an extra axiom - other things can be
proven if you take as an axiom that the continuum hypothesis is false.
But those are not different branches of mathematics, and again there is
no "drift" here.
>
>> Others are "constructivists" - they are not happy with
>> merely a proof that some solution must exist, they only consider the
>> hypothesis properly proven when they have a construction for a solution.
>> In that sense, a given conjecture may have more "solidity" in one
>> /school/ of mathematics than in another.
>
> that is what I am talking about--it is all a big multidimensional
> spectrum of {proof or conjecture}
>>
>> But I don't quite see how a single conjecture could have more "solidity"
>> in one /branch/ of mathematics than another. An example or two might
>> help.
>
> A conjecture/proof in ring-sum math may not work at all in
> Real-Numbers. They are different branches in the space of Math.
> Some proofs only work in Cartesian Multi-D spaces and fail in
> manifold spaces.
>
I think you are very confused here.
If I use ZF set theory axioms to develop Peano arithmetic and prove the
theorem that for all x, y in N, x.y = y.x (i.e., that multiplication of
natural numbers is commutative) then that theorem is proven correct from
those axioms. If I later define matrices and discover that matrix
multiplication is non-commutative, that does not disprove my earlier
theorem or show that it "works in some branches of maths but not others".
Mathematical conjectures and their proofs (if one exists) have two parts
- a set of pre-conditions and a result. The pre-conditions generally
contain an implied part (a standard set of axioms) and an explicit part
(such as "for all x in R, x > 0" or whatever). The result is the bit
that we conjecture is true, or have proven to be true, from the
pre-conditions. The conjecture or theorem says absolutely nothing about
any other situation than when the pre-conditions hold. It is not the
case that the theorem fails in other situations - it simply has no
relevance and it makes no sense to ask if it is true or not if the
pre-conditions are not met. It may be that you could formulate a
similar conjecture with other pre-conditions that apply elsewhere, and
that this new conjecture may be true or false, but it is a /new/ conjecture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-07 12:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jwvo73vc1e9.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org> |
| In reply to | #109374 |
> kinds of proofs as "better" than others. Some dislike "proof by computer",
> and don't consider the four-colour theorem to be a proven theorem yet.
"Proof by computer" can mean many different things. The 1976 proof by
Appel&Haken failed to convince a number of mathematicians both because
of the use of a computer and because of the "inelegant", "brute
force" approach.
Regarding the use of a computer, it relied on ad-hoc code which used
brute force to check some large number of subproblems. For some
mathematicians, it was basically some opaque piece of code saying "yes",
with no reason to be confident that the code actually did what the
authors intended it to do.
The 2005 proof by Gonthier also used a computer, but the program used
was a generic proof assistant. Arguably some "opaque brute force" code
was used as well, but it generated actual evidence of its claims, which
was then mechanically checked by the proof assistant.
That leaves a lot less room for arguing that it's not valid.
I haven't heard anyone express doubts about that proof yet.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-08 09:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ve2mks$23l45$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109529 |
On 07/10/2024 18:59, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> kinds of proofs as "better" than others. Some dislike "proof by computer", >> and don't consider the four-colour theorem to be a proven theorem yet. > > "Proof by computer" can mean many different things. The 1976 proof by > Appel&Haken failed to convince a number of mathematicians both because > of the use of a computer and because of the "inelegant", "brute > force" approach. > > Regarding the use of a computer, it relied on ad-hoc code which used > brute force to check some large number of subproblems. For some > mathematicians, it was basically some opaque piece of code saying "yes", > with no reason to be confident that the code actually did what the > authors intended it to do. Certainly for a "proof by computer" to be acceptable, the software involved needs to be considered part of the proof. It needs to be something other mathematicians can read through and agree is correct, just like any other bit of the mathematical proof. Some programming languages are more suitable for that task than others - typically you'll want something that can handle arbitrary precision integers, automatic garbage collection (so that the code is not cluttered with stuff that is irrelevant to the real task), and probably a functional programming language or style (which is more mathematical in outlook, and easier to prove). And just like you want the "hand-written" maths to be checked by multiple mathematicians, computer-based proofs should be confirmed on different hardware (so your proof doesn't rely on the Pentium FDIV bug or similar), and ideally with the same algorithm re-implemented in more than one programming language. The more redundancy you can get there, the more confidence you can have in the results. > > The 2005 proof by Gonthier also used a computer, but the program used > was a generic proof assistant. Arguably some "opaque brute force" code > was used as well, but it generated actual evidence of its claims, which > was then mechanically checked by the proof assistant. > > That leaves a lot less room for arguing that it's not valid. > I haven't heard anyone express doubts about that proof yet. > > > Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-12 07:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ved9kf$36uf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109529 |
On Mon, 07 Oct 2024 12:59:11 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > "Proof by computer" can mean many different things. The 1976 proof by > Appel&Haken failed to convince a number of mathematicians both because > of the use of a computer and because of the "inelegant", "brute force" > approach. It does rather change the notion of mathematical proof to something more akin to a laboratory experiment, except the laboratory only exists inside a computer, don’t you think? In other words, mathematics looks like it is turning into an actual science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-01 23:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdi0t5$2u3af$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109363 |
Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote: > On 2024-10-01 21:20, MitchAlsup1 wrote: >> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 15:51:36 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: >> >>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> schrieb: >>> >>>> Science is not a religion. >>>> >>>> And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is >>>> about unanswered questions. Religion is about unquestioned answers." >>> >>> That is the ideal of science - scientific hypotheses are proposed. >>> They have to be falsifiable (i.e. you have to be able to do experiments >>> which could, in theory, prove the hypothesis wrong). You can never >>> _prove_ a hypothesis, you can only fail to disprove it, and then it >>> will gradually tend to become accepted. In other words, you try >>> to make predictions, and if those predictions fail, then the theory >>> is in trouble. >>> >>> For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was never >>> proven, it was found by a very large number of experiments by a >>> very large number of people that it could not be disproven, so >>> people generally accept it. But people still try to think of >>> experiments which might show a deviation, and keep trying for it. >>> >>> Same for quantum mechanics. Whatever you think of it >>> philosophically, it has been shown to be remarkably accurate >>> at predicting actual behavior. >>> >>> Mathematics is not a sciene under this definition, by the way. >> >> Indeed, Units of forward progress in Math are done with formal >> proofs. > > > Yes, in the end, but it is interesting that a lot of the progress in > mathematics happens thruogh the invention or intuition of /conjectures/, > which may eventually be proven correct and true, or incorrect and > needing modification. > > An open (neither proved nor disproved) conjecture often collects lots of > "observed evidence", either by suggesting some interesting corollaries > or analogies that are then proved independently, or by surviving > energetic efforts to find counterexamples to the conjecture. In this > sense an open conjecture resembles a theory in physics. > > A list of conjectures: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_conjectures Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: https://youtu.be/LlUBDlSJp_A?si=p5HwVyqGEoReWJ0h
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-10-03 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vdkp1g$3ed1r$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109371 |
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:33:57 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote: > Sky Scholar just posted his latest mockery of modern physics: Is this a particularly believable and/or coherent mockery?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web