Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60000 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-13 21:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 13:03 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 303 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
SAFEcode G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 21:19 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-14 17:12 +1200
Re: SAFEcode Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-14 17:19 +1200
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-14 00:24 -0500
Re: SAFEcode G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-04-13 23:45 -0700
SAFEcode asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-13 22:30 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-14 00:14 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-14 10:33 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 02:01 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-14 10:23 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-14 11:49 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 04:31 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-14 14:54 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 06:39 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-14 16:10 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 08:11 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-14 23:58 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 01:25 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-15 11:11 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 02:35 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-15 13:52 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 06:04 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-15 08:08 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 08:57 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-15 18:24 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 09:45 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-04-15 19:09 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 22:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-16 08:23 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 10:44 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-16 11:22 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-19 15:33 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 04:38 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-16 14:12 -0500
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 09:28 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-17 09:33 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 02:08 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-17 09:43 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 08:04 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-17 17:08 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-17 08:07 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-15 12:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 22:56 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 10:29 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:46 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 13:08 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 08:42 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:47 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:53 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 10:52 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 22:11 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:22 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 02:17 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-17 05:56 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 04:37 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-17 10:04 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 08:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-17 20:52 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-18 13:16 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 04:22 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-18 14:08 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 06:00 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-18 21:42 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-18 17:47 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 00:11 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-19 12:52 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-19 09:10 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 07:21 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-19 12:54 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 11:18 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-20 09:58 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 08:09 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-20 13:06 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-19 07:32 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 09:03 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-19 16:30 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-19 12:58 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 05:37 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-18 08:00 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-18 19:28 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-18 09:37 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-19 11:37 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-19 09:56 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-22 15:49 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 18:13 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:46 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-20 16:50 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-17 10:31 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-17 21:09 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 19:01 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-18 15:18 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 09:00 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-18 21:52 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 00:02 -0700
Re: SAFEcode asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-19 00:40 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 03:52 -0700
Re: SAFEcode asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-21 09:02 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-19 12:58 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 07:25 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-19 15:51 +0000
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-19 23:22 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 16:26 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-20 00:48 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 09:15 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 00:39 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 10:33 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 01:55 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 11:28 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 02:39 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 12:35 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 03:58 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 13:37 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 06:04 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 15:37 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 06:52 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 16:23 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 07:32 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 22:42 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 21:56 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 09:21 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 01:00 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 10:37 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 01:59 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 12:21 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 03:45 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-21 10:05 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 12:14 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-21 08:18 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 08:51 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 09:44 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 01:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 03:45 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 02:13 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 04:29 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 03:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 10:30 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 09:13 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 13:03 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 11:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 15:25 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-22 21:49 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 16:17 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-22 22:33 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 16:56 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-23 09:24 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 02:25 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-23 08:24 -0400
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 06:18 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 14:47 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 07:16 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-23 17:20 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 08:44 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:14 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-25 04:04 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 12:22 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-25 10:53 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-23 16:48 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 12:49 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 20:40 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 13:03 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 23:49 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-24 01:07 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:51 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-24 04:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-24 13:20 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-24 06:48 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:16 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-24 15:48 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-24 10:05 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 22:59 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-26 00:16 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-24 04:39 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 22:59 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-23 08:17 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 16:49 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 17:01 -0500
Re: SAFEcode James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-22 17:51 -0400
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-22 17:35 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 17:45 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 08:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-23 08:55 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-23 21:11 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 06:23 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 13:08 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-22 20:17 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 12:43 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-23 11:52 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-23 13:53 -0500
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:18 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-04-25 21:37 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-20 12:05 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 04:28 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 04:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-20 12:40 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 14:11 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 06:31 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 16:31 +0200
Re: SAFEcode jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 09:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-20 22:52 +0200
Re: SAFEcode asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 11:10 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-20 22:43 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-20 22:59 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 09:27 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-21 15:12 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 07:31 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-21 16:43 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 08:01 -0700
Re: SAFEcode raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-21 22:29 +0000
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-21 11:09 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 10:13 -0700
Re: SAFEcode gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 10:22 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 16:51 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-22 02:52 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-21 14:44 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 16:58 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 01:11 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-21 17:31 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 10:09 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-22 10:50 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-22 11:12 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 11:37 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 05:54 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 15:31 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 06:48 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 16:29 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 16:13 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 08:22 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 16:25 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 10:35 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 13:24 -0500
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-23 01:18 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 06:11 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-23 09:36 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 08:38 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 13:04 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 09:52 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 16:23 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 10:28 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 08:16 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 13:53 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-22 12:45 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-22 16:44 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-21 22:58 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 09:53 +0200
Re: SAFEcode gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-21 10:15 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-21 13:57 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-21 23:01 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-21 23:46 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-22 01:49 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 08:32 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-22 10:02 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-21 12:06 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-21 20:18 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-21 12:30 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-21 21:30 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-21 13:39 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-21 20:21 +0100
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-22 10:24 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-22 09:46 +0100
Re: SAFEcode gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 02:57 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-22 08:42 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-19 16:19 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-19 09:08 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-16 08:55 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 11:03 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-16 11:35 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:28 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-17 09:51 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-04-20 11:28 +0300
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:32 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-14 15:24 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 08:03 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-14 18:48 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 12:43 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-04-14 21:52 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 13:16 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-14 21:39 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-15 01:20 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-15 01:29 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 01:32 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-15 08:17 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 09:13 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-04-15 18:33 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-15 10:02 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-04-15 20:55 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-15 19:27 -0500
Re: SAFEcode Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-04-20 11:53 +0300
Re: SAFEcode Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-16 14:51 +1200
Re: SAFEcode Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-17 02:13 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2015-04-15 08:14 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-14 21:02 +0100
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-14 08:33 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 08:54 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-14 11:43 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 12:41 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-14 13:08 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-14 14:02 -0700
Re: SAFEcode Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-14 15:29 -0700
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-15 10:03 +0200
Re: SAFEcode David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-15 10:02 +0200
Re: SAFEcode Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-04-20 11:13 +0300
Re: SAFEcode Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-14 13:03 +0100
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-22 02:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8b6766d6-a15a-4917-8a42-70776098270f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60705 |
On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 9:24:09 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > I think you have disarmed said incredulous mathematicians by your > impressive vocabulary. I offer my most enthusiastic contrafribblarities. I also am both anaspeptic and frasmotic for Richard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-22 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87lhhkkw43.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60705 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 21/04/15 21:21, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 21/04/15 20:06, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>>> I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I think that if our probability
>>>>> density function
>>>>> is Cantor dust, then there is no answer, and the snipers are
>>>>> right. Cantor dust means
>>>>
>>>> ... yes I know what it means. It has measure zero. What's more, it's
>>>> not a function. What on earth do you mean by calling such a set a PDF?
>>>
>>> PDF meaning Probability Density Function, yes?
>>
>> I was reading it as 'Probability Distribution Function', but I suppose
>> it amounts to much the same thing (modulo outraged reactions from
>> incredulous mathematicians, before which putative onslaught I will
>> retreat with alacrity).
>
> I think you have disarmed said incredulous mathematicians by your
> impressive vocabulary. I offer my most enthusiastic contrafribblarities.
That's a perfectly cromulent word.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 16:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fv7w87ta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60366 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 10:33:43 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> > (Of course maybe getting a value which will perform well given >> > the information I've given you may be non-trivial, but in that case >> > the problem is interesting. If all values perform as well as each other, >> > you don't have that issue, just pick random numbers and you're done). >> >> What information have you given me? >> > You've been tasked with writing a program, to reduce the total > amount of allocation in a growing buffer, and the input is human > composed English-language messages. No I haven't. It's the height of arrogance to suggest you might have tasked me with any job. If you think some arbitrary trials will give interesting results, you should do it rather than tasking others. <snip> >> > The task is to minimise the cost function. Or maximise the negative >> > of the cost function if you prefer to think of it that way. >> >> What are you waiting for? >> > Will do it. Good, that's how it should be. You might like to see if you can find any support for the claim that the cost is minimised by minimising the number of calls (true in one trivial case but not obviously true in others). <snip> > I don't mind being told I'm wrong if someone else has the right > answer. Naturally I object when no-one else can rise to the > challenge. You have no idea what other people can do. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <23febef3-af26-473d-bcf5-4e59d73e7869@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60419 |
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 4:19:20 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > No I haven't. It's the height of arrogance to suggest you might have > tasked me with any job. If you think some arbitrary trials will give > interesting results, you should do it rather than tasking others. > It's reasonable to say "I can solve the problem, and this is the answer" or, "I can't solve the problem, but I'm interested in having a go" or "I'm not interested in this" (so don't post a reply). It's the height of arrogance to snipe, complain, accuse people of talking nonsense, but not actually put up or shut up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 08:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <873840rrt7.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60111 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:29:57 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> You're saying that you can think of the function (which function?) in
>> two entirely inconsistent ways. Using crude ASCII graphics (you may
>> need to use a fixed-width font to view this), you first describe a
>> function whose graph would look something like this (the + and |
>> characters are meant to be vertically aligned):
>>
>> +-------------
>> |
>> ------------+
>>
>> and then a function whose graph would look something like this:
>>
>> ----------\ /---------
>> \ /
>> V
>>
>> You say these are two ways to think of the same function. I say
>> they're different functions.
>>
> They're not really. The function is "too low", "too high" or "just
> right". So you can think of it as looking for a step, or you can
> think of it as looking for the low point of a valley with two
> walls pointing you to the answer. It's what visualisation works
> for you.
Seriously, what the *hell* are you talking about?
My crude ASCII art was intended to be straightforward graphs of two
*different* functions as you described them. They are not different
visualizations of the same function, and I honestly cannot figure out
how you think they could be. The first one could be, for example:
double func1(double x) {
if (x < 0.0) return -1.0;
else if (x == 0.0) return 0.0;
else return 1.0;
}
and the second could be:
double func2(double x) {
if (x < -1.0) return 1.0;
else if (x > -1.0 && x < 0.0) return -x;
else if (x >= 0.0 && x < 1.0) return x;
else return 1.0;
}
(with a "valley" of width 2.0).
Do those look like the same function to you?
[...]
>> And what does this have to do either with C or with the point you
>> were trying to make about the golden ratio?
>>
> The question is how to probe something you know next to nothing about.
> For example, we've opened a stream, which we know will send us a
> human-composed message in English text. We want to store it in a
> memory buffer.
[snip]
> So what's our best strategy now?
And you assert that a Fibonacci sequence is the best strategy, yes?
For all I know, that might be true. But your hand-waving arguments
about *why* it's true (because it's some kind of "compromise" between
linear and exponential growth?) have not furthered your claim.
(I found a Wikipedia article discussing something like this, suggesting
a Fibonacci-like sequence as an optimal strategy for this kind of thing.
I don't remember the title or URL.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 11:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3e4009a-beec-49a0-839c-c2085a8ad6f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60147 |
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:55:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:29:57 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> You're saying that you can think of the function (which function?) in > >> two entirely inconsistent ways. Using crude ASCII graphics (you may > >> need to use a fixed-width font to view this), you first describe a > >> function whose graph would look something like this (the + and | > >> characters are meant to be vertically aligned): > >> > >> +------------- > >> | > >> ------------+ > >> > >> and then a function whose graph would look something like this: > >> > >> ----------\ /--------- > >> \ / > >> V > >> > >> You say these are two ways to think of the same function. I say > >> they're different functions. > >> > > Graph 2 is the integral of graph 1, assuming graph 1 has been surrounded by zeros (it should have been drawn the the V extending indefinitely). So we can thing of the function as something that gives us a height (y is a height, and so we have a step). or we can think of it as something that gives us a derivative (so we've got a valley). The second way is the way most people prefer to visualise what we're doing, but it doesn't matter if another mental image works better for you. The fundamental thing to understand is that all the information has been stripped except too high, too low and "just right". > > For all I know, that might be true. But your hand-waving arguments > about *why* it's true (because it's some kind of "compromise" between > linear and exponential growth?) have not furthered your claim. > Because we don't know the probability density function of the point at which f(x) = 0. We do know that it's somewhere between uniform with a limit and exponential decay from zero. So we need to search using a function that somehow compromises between a binary search in linear space and a binary search in log space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pp73rkf8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60166 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:55:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:29:57 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> >> You're saying that you can think of the function (which function?) in
>> >> two entirely inconsistent ways. Using crude ASCII graphics (you may
>> >> need to use a fixed-width font to view this), you first describe a
>> >> function whose graph would look something like this (the + and |
>> >> characters are meant to be vertically aligned):
>> >>
>> >> +-------------
>> >> |
>> >> ------------+
>> >>
>> >> and then a function whose graph would look something like this:
>> >>
>> >> ----------\ /---------
>> >> \ /
>> >> V
>> >>
(I cleaned up the alignment.)
>> >> You say these are two ways to think of the same function. I say
>> >> they're different functions.
>
> Graph 2 is the integral of graph 1, assuming graph 1 has been surrounded by zeros
It's been a long time since I studied calculus, but I'm pretty sure
that's nonsense. Graph 2 might be the derivative of the inverse of
graph 1.
Graphs 1 and 2 were my attempt to visualize the functions that you
described upthread.
[SNIP]
Clearly trying to figure out what you actually mean is a waste of my
time.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 10:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqg5j$na7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60172 |
On 16/04/15 20:35, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:55:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:29:57 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>>> You're saying that you can think of the function (which function?) in >>>>> two entirely inconsistent ways. Using crude ASCII graphics (you may >>>>> need to use a fixed-width font to view this), you first describe a >>>>> function whose graph would look something like this (the + and | >>>>> characters are meant to be vertically aligned): >>>>> >>>>> +------------- >>>>> | >>>>> ------------+ >>>>> >>>>> and then a function whose graph would look something like this: >>>>> >>>>> ----------\ /--------- >>>>> \ / >>>>> V >>>>> > > (I cleaned up the alignment.) > >>>>> You say these are two ways to think of the same function. I say >>>>> they're different functions. >> >> Graph 2 is the integral of graph 1, assuming graph 1 has been surrounded by zeros > > > It's been a long time since I studied calculus, but I'm pretty sure > that's nonsense. Graph 2 might be the derivative of the inverse of > graph 1. You are correct, assuming that the vertical line in graph 1 is at an angle rather than vertical - or that the valley in graph 2 is zero width and infinitely deep, and assuming we are using engineer-style maths (which tends to gloss over details like infinities) and not mathematician maths (since mathematicians get upset about "infinitely deep" valleys). > > Graphs 1 and 2 were my attempt to visualize the functions that you > described upthread. > > [SNIP] > > Clearly trying to figure out what you actually mean is a waste of my > time. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 09:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgqhgr$rbj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60204 |
On 17/04/15 09:28, David Brown wrote: <snip> > You are correct, assuming that the vertical line in graph 1 is at an > angle rather than vertical - or that the valley in graph 2 is zero width > and infinitely deep, and assuming we are using engineer-style maths > (which tends to gloss over details like infinities) and not > mathematician maths (since mathematicians get upset about "infinitely > deep" valleys). To be fair, they're not the only ones who get upset about infinitely deep valleys. Geographers, polar explorers, bridge-builders... -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-20 11:28 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87twwbtd8d.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #60172 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> > On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:55:44 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> >> > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 8:29:57 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> >> >> You're saying that you can think of the function (which function?) in
> >> >> two entirely inconsistent ways. Using crude ASCII graphics (you may
> >> >> need to use a fixed-width font to view this), you first describe a
> >> >> function whose graph would look something like this (the + and |
> >> >> characters are meant to be vertically aligned):
> >> >>
> >> >> +-------------
> >> >> |
> >> >> ------------+
> >> >>
> >> >> and then a function whose graph would look something like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> ----------\ /---------
> >> >> \ /
> >> >> V
> >> >>
>
> (I cleaned up the alignment.)
>
> >> >> You say these are two ways to think of the same function. I say
> >> >> they're different functions.
> >
> > Graph 2 is the integral of graph 1, assuming graph 1 has been surrounded by zeros
>
> It's been a long time since I studied calculus, but I'm pretty sure
> that's nonsense. Graph 2 might be the derivative of the inverse of
> graph 1.
The integral of graph 1 is a midpoint with a straight line sticking out to
the left and another straight line sticking out to the right of it. The
slope to the right is greater than the slope to the left. Assuming graph
1 is centred about (0,0), you've got an infinite 'V' shape (left slopes down,
right slopes up).
The alternative method to verify or disprove such a claim without needing to
integrate would be to take the derivative of graph 2, and see whether that
matched graph 1.
D(graph2) = .... flat, downward slope, upward slope, flat ... =
+--+
| |
0 ---------+ | +------------
| |
+--+
Phil
--
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall be well regulated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 10:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqgd9$o64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60147 |
On 16/04/15 17:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > > And you assert that a Fibonacci sequence is the best strategy, yes? > > For all I know, that might be true. But your hand-waving arguments > about *why* it's true (because it's some kind of "compromise" between > linear and exponential growth?) have not furthered your claim. > > (I found a Wikipedia article discussing something like this, suggesting > a Fibonacci-like sequence as an optimal strategy for this kind of thing. > I don't remember the title or URL.) > Fibonacci-like sequences can be optimal for certain specific search types: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section_search> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_search_technique> I don't think these particular wikipedia articles are very clear, but they are far better than Malcolm's random walk! There is no reason that I can see to correlate the descriptions in these articles with any of the problems Malcolm has been describing, no matter which combination of unspecified assumptions he chooses to apply.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 15:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgj7sm$n1g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60031 |
On 14/04/2015 14:39, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 1:54:52 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> And I assume you agree that you were completely wrong about Fibonacci
>> numbers being anything other than exponential growth. It would be nice
>> if you didn't keep snipping your mistakes - admitting that you are wrong
>> (or providing justification for why you are not) is common courtesy.
>>
> The base exponential function is e^x. The base arithmetical function is of course
> x + 1. The series phi^-1, 1, phi, phi^2 is a kind of midpoint between the two
> series.
> Say we want to find x for which f(x) is zero. We know that x is N steps away
> from unity, and we know than N is less than, say, 100. But we don't know if
> the function is x - N or ln(x) - N. We can't plot it, all we can do is call f(x) and see
> if it is positive or negative.
> So what's our optimal strategy?
I'm not sure if there is one.
What's the best approach here, assuming we don't know the contents of
the function:
int f(long long int x){
return x!=6839003422641637678;
}
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 08:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cd31057-0bc1-43af-ac64-bbe203a90359@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60034 |
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:24:24 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if there is one.
>
> What's the best approach here, assuming we don't know the contents of
> the function:
>
> int f(long long int x){
> return x!=6839003422641637678;
> }
>
You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
minimum). You have to make assumptions that the function will be pointing
towards the answer, or will be positive one side and negative the other if you
want zero rather than the minimum.
The assumption is that the mathematical function reflects some sort of real
underlying physical process which you don't know much about, but you don't
know absolutely nothing - you know that the answers will be clustered towards
zero, you know that the process won't be wildly super-exponential.
A real example, which I did for my PhD, is an energy surface in protein conformation
space. The bonds rotate. Some conformations, such as those where the atoms overlap
each other, are so entropically unfavourable that for all practical purposes we can
say they never occur. But others involve milder forces, such as van der Walls interactions
that tend to draw particles together - so as you rotate two bonds, you'll see an energy
surface in the two angles. Even with two bonds its going to be too difficult to model
it analytically, but you can sample it and find the minimum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 18:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877ftek3cw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60037 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:24:24 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure if there is one.
>>
>> What's the best approach here, assuming we don't know the contents of
>> the function:
>>
>> int f(long long int x){
>> return x!=6839003422641637678;
>> }
>>
> You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
> minimum).
Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
what you are saying something correct. We may never know the full set
of constraints you are assuming for f which make your claims (which are
flat-out wrong on the face of it) right in your mind.
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9ae27b3e-85a3-4456-87e9-f96123226295@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60046 |
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 6:48:57 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3:24:24 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if there is one.
> >>
> >> What's the best approach here, assuming we don't know the contents of
> >> the function:
> >>
> >> int f(long long int x){
> >> return x!=6839003422641637678;
> >> }
> >>
> > You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
> > minimum).
>
> Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
> no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
> what you are saying something correct. We may never know the full set
> of constraints you are assuming for f which make your claims (which are
> flat-out wrong on the face of it) right in your mind.
>
The meaning is defined by the natural language of the words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 21:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgjr5k$j9j$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #60051 |
On 14.04.2015 21:43, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> int f(long long int x){
>>>> return x!=6839003422641637678;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>> You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
>>> minimum).
>>
>> Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
>> no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
>> what you are saying something correct.
>
> The meaning is defined by the natural language of the words.
So then can I assume that by you "can't minimise" a function you mean
that I can't write this:
void minimize_unminimizable(void) {
for (long long int i = 0; i < LLONG_MAX; i++) {
if (f(i) == 0) {
printf("Minimum: %lld\n", i);
}
}
}
That would be a very peculiar natural language meaning of the word
"can't" because for something that I "can't" do I sure as hell just did.
Cheers,
Johannes
--
>> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt?
> Zumindest nicht öffentlich!
Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen
Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage.
- Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <18ea3a94-ccdd-4841-9754-833282806afd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60052 |
On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:52:31 PM UTC+1, Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 14.04.2015 21:43, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> >>>> int f(long long int x){
> >>>> return x!=6839003422641637678;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>> You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
> >>> minimum).
> >>
> >> Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
> >> no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
> >> what you are saying something correct.
> >
> > The meaning is defined by the natural language of the words.
>
> So then can I assume that by you "can't minimise" a function you mean
> that I can't write this:
>
> void minimize_unminimizable(void) {
> for (long long int i = 0; i < LLONG_MAX; i++) {
> if (f(i) == 0) {
> printf("Minimum: %lld\n", i);
> }
> }
> }
>
> That would be a very peculiar natural language meaning of the word
> "can't" because for something that I "can't" do I sure as hell just did.
>
It wouldn't be an unusual use of natural language.
I said "a golf course function". Add a dimension.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-14 21:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgjtsf$g5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60056 |
On 14/04/15 21:16, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:52:31 PM UTC+1, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> On 14.04.2015 21:43, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> >>>> int f(long long int x){
>> >>>> return x!=6839003422641637678;
>> >>>> }
>> >>>>
>> >>> You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a flat area and a tiny
>> >>> minimum).
>> >>
>> >> Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
>> >> no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
>> >> what you are saying something correct.
>> >
>> > The meaning is defined by the natural language of the words.
>>
>> So then can I assume that by you "can't minimise" a function you mean
>> that I can't write this:
>>
>> void minimize_unminimizable(void) {
>> for (long long int i = 0; i < LLONG_MAX; i++) {
>> if (f(i) == 0) {
>> printf("Minimum: %lld\n", i);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> That would be a very peculiar natural language meaning of the word
>> "can't" because for something that I "can't" do I sure as hell just did.
>>
> It wouldn't be an unusual use of natural language.
>
> I said "a golf course function". Add a dimension.
That would be a rather uninteresting golf course. Add /two/ dimensions.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87pp76i6nq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60056 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 8:52:31 PM UTC+1, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>> On 14.04.2015 21:43, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>> >>>> int f(long long int x){
>> >>>> return x!=6839003422641637678;
>> >>>> }
>> >>>>
>> >>> You can't minimise a golf course function. (That's one with a
>> >>> flat area and a tiny
>> >>> minimum).
>> >>
>> >> Clearly one can. However, as in so many of your threads, your words are
>> >> no doubt to be interpreted with all the extra words added in to make
>> >> what you are saying something correct.
>> >
>> > The meaning is defined by the natural language of the words.
>>
>> So then can I assume that by you "can't minimise" a function you mean
>> that I can't write this:
>>
>> void minimize_unminimizable(void) {
>> for (long long int i = 0; i < LLONG_MAX; i++) {
>> if (f(i) == 0) {
>> printf("Minimum: %lld\n", i);
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> That would be a very peculiar natural language meaning of the word
>> "can't" because for something that I "can't" do I sure as hell just did.
>>
> It wouldn't be an unusual use of natural language.
>
> I said "a golf course function". Add a dimension.
(1) So you placed that comment after an exampled of a one-argument
function in a thread about minimising one-argument functions, but you
did not intend your words to be interpreted as referring to one-argument
functions? Would you agree that that is, at best, rather deceptive?
(2) Are you claiming that Johannes Bauer's example code can not be
extended to functions of more than one argument?
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 01:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mgkbbi$uu3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60067 |
On 15/04/15 01:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: <snip> >> I said "a golf course function". Add a dimension. > > (1) So you placed that comment after an exampled of a one-argument > function in a thread about minimising one-argument functions, but you > did not intend your words to be interpreted as referring to one-argument > functions? Would you agree that that is, at best, rather deceptive? I wouldn't. With the greatest possible respect to Malcolm, I'm afraid Hanlon's Razor must be applied. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web