Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60006 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-14 00:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-14 13:03 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 297 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 13:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mh66gu$7ca$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60663 |
On 4/21/2015 12:15 PM, gwowen wrote: > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 5:09:10 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: >> Your "understanding" how linguistically competent adult >> speakers communicate with each other appears to be interfering with your >> ability to understand what people are telling you. You can have a PDF >> over Cantor dust. > Can you? It'd have to be a seriously weird one though. It's easy to think of a discrete distribution on a countable set, and it's easy to think of a distribution on a set with measure (a traditional PDF), but an uncountable set of measure zero... How do you set it up so it CDF sums/integrates to 1? I was thinking about something along the lines of starting with a distribution on [0,1] and one of the bijections between the cantor dust and the interval to set up the PDF. But now that I think more about it, that wouldn't actually result in a PDF. It might be possible if we allow pseudo-functions (like the Dirac delta). Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mw21cdpt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60640 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:12:34 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> > When we descend any of the intervals, it's got the same fractal >> > structure. >> > So we've got an infinite number of points, and the probability >> > of each one is infinitesimal. So it sums to unity. >> >> Nonsense. Is it possible to define a function that is zero almost >> everywhere (i.e. except on a set of measure zero) yet has integral 1? >> Yes. Have you done so? No. Does it have anything to do with what you >> are saying? Probably not. >> > You've got an infinite number of points of infinite thinness, so I wouldn't > like to commit myself. But I suppose if you have an infinite number of > blocks that start at 1/2 and so down 1/4, 1/8 you can say they sum to unity, > and we can argue that that's "bigger" than an infinite number of infinitesimal > points, so maybe not. I'm happy to accept what other people say on this > matter. Sigh. That's not the Cantor set -- *that* set does *not* have zero measure (if I've read between the hand-waving correctly). So does *this* new hinted-at-but-no-yet-defined density function have any significance to what you what you are saying? If so, please define it properly rather just talking vaguely about infinitesimal points (remember that message sizes are integers). If it's no significant, please just drop it. <snip> >> Have you done the experiments? At least if you did that you could post >> the code you used and we'd see what problem you are trying to specify. >> > I've done experiment one. > I'll post the code. At last I may find out what some of your terms actually mean. > The results are not uninteresting, at least not to me. I'm sure a professional > mathematician would find the problem and the question trivial, but no one > here seems able or willing to give a sensible answer. That's ironic, given that you've steadfastly refused to answer my questions asking for clarification. Without answers I still have little idea what question you expected an answer to. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 23:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mh6juv$22b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60690 |
On 21/04/15 23:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:12:34 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>> >>> > When we descend any of the intervals, it's got the same fractal >>> > structure. >>> > So we've got an infinite number of points, and the probability >>> > of each one is infinitesimal. So it sums to unity. >>> >>> Nonsense. Is it possible to define a function that is zero almost >>> everywhere (i.e. except on a set of measure zero) yet has integral 1? >>> Yes. Have you done so? No. Does it have anything to do with what you >>> are saying? Probably not. >>> >> You've got an infinite number of points of infinite thinness, so I wouldn't >> like to commit myself. But I suppose if you have an infinite number of >> blocks that start at 1/2 and so down 1/4, 1/8 you can say they sum to unity, >> and we can argue that that's "bigger" than an infinite number of infinitesimal >> points, so maybe not. I'm happy to accept what other people say on this >> matter. > > Sigh. That's not the Cantor set It's not Cantor dust, either, which is what I think he was actually trying to envisage. Cantor dust is what you get by applying the following process to a black square: 1) divide the square into nine equal squares (3x3); 2) paint the middle column and the middle row white; 3) recurse. When you've finished (which, of course, you won't), the infinitesimal black squares that remain are the Cantor dust. Incidentally, Cantor dust has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the problem of an enemy hurling N bytes at you. <snip> -- 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 | 2015-04-22 01:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878udlc7gu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60691 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 21/04/15 23:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:12:34 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> >>>> > When we descend any of the intervals, it's got the same fractal >>>> > structure. >>>> > So we've got an infinite number of points, and the probability >>>> > of each one is infinitesimal. So it sums to unity. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. Is it possible to define a function that is zero almost >>>> everywhere (i.e. except on a set of measure zero) yet has integral 1? >>>> Yes. Have you done so? No. Does it have anything to do with what you >>>> are saying? Probably not. >>>> >>> You've got an infinite number of points of infinite thinness, so I wouldn't >>> like to commit myself. But I suppose if you have an infinite number of >>> blocks that start at 1/2 and so down 1/4, 1/8 you can say they sum to unity, >>> and we can argue that that's "bigger" than an infinite number of infinitesimal >>> points, so maybe not. I'm happy to accept what other people say on this >>> matter. >> >> Sigh. That's not the Cantor set > > It's not Cantor dust, either, which is what I think he was actually > trying to envisage. I guess you missed the exchange about that... <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-22 08:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mh7ip5$lh2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60696 |
On 22/04/15 01:49, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 21/04/15 23:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:12:34 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> > When we descend any of the intervals, it's got the same fractal >>>>> > structure. >>>>> > So we've got an infinite number of points, and the probability >>>>> > of each one is infinitesimal. So it sums to unity. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. Is it possible to define a function that is zero almost >>>>> everywhere (i.e. except on a set of measure zero) yet has integral 1? >>>>> Yes. Have you done so? No. Does it have anything to do with what you >>>>> are saying? Probably not. >>>>> >>>> You've got an infinite number of points of infinite thinness, so I wouldn't >>>> like to commit myself. But I suppose if you have an infinite number of >>>> blocks that start at 1/2 and so down 1/4, 1/8 you can say they sum to unity, >>>> and we can argue that that's "bigger" than an infinite number of infinitesimal >>>> points, so maybe not. I'm happy to accept what other people say on this >>>> matter. >>> >>> Sigh. That's not the Cantor set >> >> It's not Cantor dust, either, which is what I think he was actually >> trying to envisage. > > I guess you missed the exchange about that... I guess I did. Sorry, not seeing it even now. (No big deal.) > > <snip> > -- 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 | 2015-04-22 10:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874mo8bhne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60699 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 22/04/15 01:49, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 21/04/15 23:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:12:34 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > When we descend any of the intervals, it's got the same fractal >>>>>> > structure. >>>>>> > So we've got an infinite number of points, and the probability >>>>>> > of each one is infinitesimal. So it sums to unity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense. Is it possible to define a function that is zero almost >>>>>> everywhere (i.e. except on a set of measure zero) yet has integral 1? >>>>>> Yes. Have you done so? No. Does it have anything to do with what you >>>>>> are saying? Probably not. >>>>>> >>>>> You've got an infinite number of points of infinite thinness, so I wouldn't >>>>> like to commit myself. But I suppose if you have an infinite number of >>>>> blocks that start at 1/2 and so down 1/4, 1/8 you can say they sum to unity, >>>>> and we can argue that that's "bigger" than an infinite number of infinitesimal >>>>> points, so maybe not. I'm happy to accept what other people say on this >>>>> matter. >>>> >>>> Sigh. That's not the Cantor set >>> >>> It's not Cantor dust, either, which is what I think he was actually >>> trying to envisage. >> >> I guess you missed the exchange about that... > > I guess I did. Sorry, not seeing it even now. (No big deal.) Summary: that Cantor is CxC or CxCxC (or higher) where C is the Cantor set has been brought up twice before -- one by David Brown and once by myself. Malcolm's purpose in bringing up a set like C is to try to get a probability density function which is non-zero on so sparse a set that it gets round the problem of probabilities becoming negligible at the extremes. Because the case in point is a distribution of sizes, it's C that matters (and not the "dust" versions) because size is a one-dimensional random variable. There's some guesswork here and I offer this in case you think I've misunderstood what either he or you are saying. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bnihmhcf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60582 |
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?
--
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 | 2015-04-21 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zj61e1d4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60673 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > 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? Yes. Given the presence of the phrase nearby, I thought it OK to leave it unstated. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y4lll1nk.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60676 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> 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?
>
> Yes. Given the presence of the phrase nearby, I thought it OK to leave
> it unstated.
I think the phrase was lost downthread. (Given the discussion of
English phrases, I briefly thought they were stored in PDF files.)
--
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 | 2015-04-21 21:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tww9dy0u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #60678 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >>> 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? >> >> Yes. Given the presence of the phrase nearby, I thought it OK to leave >> it unstated. > > I think the phrase was lost downthread. (Given the discussion of > English phrases, I briefly thought they were stored in PDF files.) It was in the part you quoted (and is still there) so I think we must be talking at cross purposes. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87tww9kygy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60684 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Yes. Given the presence of the phrase nearby, I thought it OK to leave
>>> it unstated.
>>
>> I think the phrase was lost downthread. (Given the discussion of
>> English phrases, I briefly thought they were stored in PDF files.)
>
> It was in the part you quoted (and is still there) so I think we must be
> talking at cross purposes.
I saw the term "PDF" in an article further downthread; the text that
defined the term was not there. I traversed up the thread until I found
the first article that mentioned the term. I responded to that article,
which did include both the abbreviation and its expansion.
--
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 | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-21 20:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mh67to$e1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60673 |
On 21/04/15 20:06, Keith Thompson wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] >>> I'm a bit out of my depth here, but I think that if our probability >>> density function >>> is Cantor dust, then there is no answer, and the snipers are >>> right. Cantor dust means >> >> ... yes I know what it means. It has measure zero. What's more, it's >> not a function. What on earth do you mean by calling such a set a PDF? > > PDF meaning Probability Density Function, yes? > I was reading it as 'Probability Distribution Function', but I suppose it amounts to much the same thing (modulo outraged reactions from incredulous mathematicians, before which putative onslaught I will retreat with alacrity). -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-22 10:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mh7lp6$vu7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60677 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-22 09:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mh7n2v$4te$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60705 |
On 22/04/15 09:24, David Brown wrote: > On 21/04/15 21:21, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> 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. See? See? It's all dahn to English skills, innit? -- 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 | 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]
Page 13 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web