Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: markspace <-@.>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Java puzzler
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 08:09:31 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <iqoqbg$sd8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <4db69c13-878f-4806-adb2-a3c5adb1c48c@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <qrGdnWE1mOKFHVfQnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105112141410.27211@urchin.earth.li> <I6SdnROEzeMni1bQnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105122029030.7602@urchin.earth.li> <-8mdnSRPEIdA21HQnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqhhim$blg$4@speranza.aioe.org> <iqhjks$798$1@dont-email.me> <AcCdnflMosQt-lHQnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iqhumi$750$1@dont-email.me> <jY-dnS9ZV4RyG1HQnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@earthlink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105140954470.12373@urchin.earth.li> <iqm848$52b$1@dont-email.me> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105150033090.12373@urchin.earth.li> <iqnakv$t9g$1@dont-email.me> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105151107130.12373@urchin.earth.li> <iqohjj$a0q$1@dont-email.me> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105151513070.12373@urchin.earth.li>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 15:09:36 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="Gyo0FQiuGFjMddvl0JJHxw"; logging-data="29096"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NNS54/txLoHw9ZKDveymgvf94p23iJIg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105151513070.12373@urchin.earth.li>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EhFBzQrHy5zVBKHDSj1T1WgqWrQ=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4121

On 5/15/2011 7:23 AM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> different machines - different processors, different compilers,
> different applications of the same compiler - will carry out that
> calculation in different ways


If you want to define a consistent 100% deterministic algorithm, have 
at.  I'm saying I don't need one.  (I also said that "infinite 
precision" or similar attempts don't work for me, due to being too hard 
to implement in practice.)


>
> You evidently feel that Rubbish Nowhere is a bigger win than Failure
> Somewhere is a loss. Others do not.


Yeah, and I think I'm having a hard time understanding why "Rubbish 
Nowhere" is not universally considered a win.  Who wants rubbish?


>
> So basically, it's a matter of consistent, correct, quick - pick two.

No, it's not.  All three are 100% possible.  I don't think anyone has 
shown that what is being touted here as "consistent" or "deterministic" 
has any use in real world problems.