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 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 13:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgljc8$h6q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60077 |
On 15/04/15 11:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> When you are prepared to use the same language as the rest of us, maybe we can make progress. But as long as you expect people to interpret "a function we know nothing about" as "the size of a fish", there is little point in the thread. At least with fir, asetofsymbols, and Rosario19 it is obvious that they can't (or won't) communicate normally. It is much more frustrating when you write perfectly clear English but mean something entirely different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <093bfeb5-5d4d-4c09-9c87-5fa51ac8d398@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60078 |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 12:52:42 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 15/04/15 11:35, Malcolm McLean wrote: > <snip> > > When you are prepared to use the same language as the rest of us, maybe > we can make progress. But as long as you expect people to interpret "a > function we know nothing about" as "the size of a fish", there is little > point in the thread. > > At least with fir, asetofsymbols, and Rosario19 it is obvious that they > can't (or won't) communicate normally. It is much more frustrating when > you write perfectly clear English but mean something entirely different. > A useful function represents something in the real world. In this case, the function is the size of the fish, or, if you insist, of x - n where n is the size of the fish (in metres), and we're looking for the value of x where that function is zero. That's not a good way of talking. So what's x going to be? I have told you almost nothing about the fish, other than that it's fish. But that's crucial information, x can't be negative, and it can't be bigger than the maximum dimension of the ocean. We need something else, which is the infinitesimal limit, but ignore that for the time being. I'm trying to put over the essential simplicity of the concept. But is x likely to be close to zero, or close to the maximum dimension of the ocean? What's our best search strategy? Now the leap you need to make is I'm not telling you that n is the length of a fish. All I'm telling you is that it represents something in the real world, and we know it can't be lower than zero, and we know we can represent it adequately using the numerical facilities of our computer. No what's our optimal search strategy for n?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 08:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87sic1sa3s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60077 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> It's really very basic.
> If I say "we're trying to minimise a function we know nothing about",
> and you interpret "nothing" in the most literal way possible, then
> there's an infinite number of possible functions, and you're left with
> some rarefied branch of set theory.
[...]
It might have helped if you had defined what it means to "minimise" a
function. (One possible meaning is "belittle"; I can certainly do
that.)
You've presented functions that can return -1, 0, or 1, and discussed
finding an argument for which they return 0. If that's what you mean by
"minimise", you need to be a *lot* clearer in your descriptions.
--
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 | 2015-04-15 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f1874ce-edfe-4923-8d66-9bff31b56f0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60082 |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:08:16 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > > It's really very basic. > > If I say "we're trying to minimise a function we know nothing about", > > and you interpret "nothing" in the most literal way possible, then > > there's an infinite number of possible functions, and you're left with > > some rarefied branch of set theory. > [...] > > It might have helped if you had defined what it means to "minimise" a > function. (One possible meaning is "belittle"; I can certainly do > that.) > > You've presented functions that can return -1, 0, or 1, and discussed > finding an argument for which they return 0. If that's what you mean by > "minimise", you need to be a *lot* clearer in your descriptions. > That's just usage. People say "minimisation" when they're trying to find a maximum, conventionally you invert the function. Normally you say "solve" when you're trying to find zero. In this case I set it up so that you can think of it as a minimum and two derivatives, which you can take accurately enough to know the sign and nothing else, or you can think of it as a step with a tiny vertical which is the point we want.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 18:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgm3an$hsr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60086 |
On 15/04/15 17:57, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:08:16 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> [...] >>> It's really very basic. >>> If I say "we're trying to minimise a function we know nothing about", >>> and you interpret "nothing" in the most literal way possible, then >>> there's an infinite number of possible functions, and you're left with >>> some rarefied branch of set theory. >> [...] >> >> It might have helped if you had defined what it means to "minimise" a >> function. (One possible meaning is "belittle"; I can certainly do >> that.) >> >> You've presented functions that can return -1, 0, or 1, and discussed >> finding an argument for which they return 0. If that's what you mean by >> "minimise", you need to be a *lot* clearer in your descriptions. >> > That's just usage. > People say "minimisation" when they're trying to find a maximum, conventionally > you invert the function. Let me get this straight - when /you/ say "minimise", you sometimes mean "find a 0", and sometimes "find a maximum". What do you call it when you want to find a minimum? Painting the function pink? Translating it to Chinese? I don't even know where to start with your complete misunderstanding of the word "derivative" - perhaps you forgot to mention that you use the word "derivative" here to mean different species of fish. > Normally you say "solve" when you're trying to find zero. > In this case I set it up so that you can think of it as a minimum and two derivatives, > which you can take accurately enough to know the sign and nothing else, or > you can think of it as a step with a tiny vertical which is the point we want. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 09:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9041111-d6a1-42ca-81ee-c88a0c20b0b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60088 |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 5:24:57 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 15/04/15 17:57, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:08:16 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> > > That's just usage. > > People say "minimisation" when they're trying to find a maximum, conventionally > > you invert the function. > > Let me get this straight - when /you/ say "minimise", you sometimes mean > "find a 0", and sometimes "find a maximum". What do you call it when > you want to find a minimum? Painting the function pink? Translating it > to Chinese? > Minimise often means maximise. Conventionally you search for a minimum, and invert the sign if you actually want a maximum. That's legitimately confusing, but it's how people who deal with these things day in and day out talk. > > I don't even know where to start with your complete misunderstanding of > the word "derivative" - perhaps you forgot to mention that you use the > word "derivative" here to mean different species of fish. > You can think of the function as a step, with the points above the critical value as one and the points below as minus one. Or you can think of it as a valley with the critical value as the lowest point, and one side pointing down, and the other side also pointing down, but from the other direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 19:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgm608$sa8$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #60091 |
On 15.04.2015 18:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > Minimise often means maximise. Conventionally you search for a minimum, and > invert the sign if you actually want a maximum. > That's legitimately confusing, but it's how people who deal with these things > day in and day out talk. If I have the function x^3 - 2x^2 and I ask you for the X value of the local minimum, I mean the X value of the local minimum. Not the X value of the local maximum. Not the Y value of the local minimum. Not the Y value of the local maximum. Nor any other nonsense. The burden to get your ideas across is on *you*. You're being sloppy in your language and when you're confronted with that you go into full-arrogance mode where you try to defend yourself by claiming "pretty much everyone does it like this" and that completely opposite concepts are similar to the point where terms can be used interchangably. You're the one being sloppy and you expect everyone to clean up your mess after you and interpret your words in the way you MEANT, not the way you WROTE them. That's incredibly arrogant. If you want to express an idea, write down the IDEA not something that is vaguely or even vastly different and then crying that it's not what you ACTUALLY meant. That's just being obnoxious and annoying. Cheers, Johannes -- >> Wo hattest Du das Beben nochmal GENAU vorhergesagt? > Zumindest nicht öffentlich! Ah, der neueste und bis heute genialste Streich unsere großen Kosmologen: Die Geheim-Vorhersage. - Karl Kaos über Rüdiger Thomas in dsa <hidbv3$om2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-15 22:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <971b4b5e-c29e-4cd4-b83d-837500dfd05f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60093 |
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:09:37 PM UTC+1, Johannes Bauer wrote: > On 15.04.2015 18:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > Minimise often means maximise. Conventionally you search for a minimum, and > > invert the sign if you actually want a maximum. > > That's legitimately confusing, but it's how people who deal with these things > > day in and day out talk. > > If I have the function x^3 - 2x^2 and I ask you for the X value of the > local minimum, I mean the X value of the local minimum. > > Not the X value of the local maximum. > Not the Y value of the local minimum. > Not the Y value of the local maximum. > Nor any other nonsense. > But if you wanted the y value of the local minimum, and I gave you the x value, would you complain? If fact we say "the function minimisation problem", "techniques for minimisation" and so on, and everyone understands that if you are looking for a maximum you simply invert the sign. It's legitimately a bit confusing if you're not familiar with the jargon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877ftcrtbf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60110 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> If fact we say "the function minimisation problem", "techniques for
> minimisation" and so on, and everyone understands that if you are
> looking for a maximum you simply invert the sign. It's legitimately
> a bit confusing if you're not familiar with the jargon.
You've asserted repeatedly that "minimisation" is commonly used as
jargon for finding either the minimum or the maximum value of a
function. If that's true, you should be able to cite sources that use
the word that way.
Please do so.
In my own cursory Google search, I see an explicit distinction between
"minimization" and "maximization", with the non-jargon meanings I'd
expect. Of course that doesn't prove anything, but it is suggestive.
--
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 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43a89e45-c32c-473c-b2ad-1076e1461109@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60141 |
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:23:10 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > > If fact we say "the function minimisation problem", "techniques for > > minimisation" and so on, and everyone understands that if you are > > looking for a maximum you simply invert the sign. It's legitimately > > a bit confusing if you're not familiar with the jargon. > > You've asserted repeatedly that "minimisation" is commonly used as > jargon for finding either the minimum or the maximum value of a > function. If that's true, you should be able to cite sources that use > the word that way. > > Please do so. > > In my own cursory Google search, I see an explicit distinction between > "minimization" and "maximization", with the non-jargon meanings I'd > expect. Of course that doesn't prove anything, but it is suggestive. > > -- > 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" My second hit on "function minimisation algorithms" https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Multidimensional-Minimization.html This chapter describes routines for finding minima of arbitrary multidimensional functions. The library provides low level components for a variety of iterative minimizers and convergence tests. These can be combined by the user to achieve the desired solution, while providing full access to the intermediate steps of the algorithms. Each class of methods uses the same framework, so that you can switch between minimizers at runtime without needing to recompile your program. Each instance of a minimizer keeps track of its own state, allowing the minimizers to be used in multi-threaded programs. The minimization algorithms can be used to maximize a function by inverting its sign.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87twwgq6gh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #60163 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:23:10 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > If fact we say "the function minimisation problem", "techniques for
>> > minimisation" and so on, and everyone understands that if you are
>> > looking for a maximum you simply invert the sign. It's legitimately
>> > a bit confusing if you're not familiar with the jargon.
>>
>> You've asserted repeatedly that "minimisation" is commonly used as
>> jargon for finding either the minimum or the maximum value of a
>> function. If that's true, you should be able to cite sources that use
>> the word that way.
>>
>> Please do so.
>>
>> In my own cursory Google search, I see an explicit distinction between
>> "minimization" and "maximization", with the non-jargon meanings I'd
>> expect. Of course that doesn't prove anything, but it is suggestive.
>
> My second hit on "function minimisation algorithms"
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Multidimensional-Minimization.html
>
> This chapter describes routines for finding minima of arbitrary
> multidimensional functions. The library provides low level components
> for a variety of iterative minimizers and convergence tests. These can
> be combined by the user to achieve the desired solution, while
> providing full access to the intermediate steps of the
> algorithms. Each class of methods uses the same framework, so that you
> can switch between minimizers at runtime without needing to recompile
> your program. Each instance of a minimizer keeps track of its own
> state, allowing the minimizers to be used in multi-threaded
> programs. The minimization algorithms can be used to maximize a
> function by inverting its sign.
Read the last sentence:
The minimization algorithms can be used to maximize a function by
inverting its sign.
That supports my position, not yours. The quoted text does not use the
word "minimization" to refer to finding the maximum value of a function.
It suggests a technique that can use a minimization algorithm to
determine the maximum value of a function *by determining the minimum
value of a different function*, namely the original function with the
result's sign inverted. That's both useful and obvious.
Minimization means finding the minimum value of a function. It does
not mean finding the maximum value of a function; that's called
"maximimization".
At this point, my working hypothesis is that you're simply wrong
and unwilling to admit it. You've done this kind of thing before,
and it makes trying to communicate with you very frustrating.
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-19 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5533caa6.23855046@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #60110 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:09:37 PM UTC+1, Johannes Bauer wrote: > > On 15.04.2015 18:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > > Minimise often means maximise. Conventionally you search for a minimum, and > > > invert the sign if you actually want a maximum. > > > That's legitimately confusing, but it's how people who deal with these things > > > day in and day out talk. > > > > If I have the function x^3 - 2x^2 and I ask you for the X value of the > > local minimum, I mean the X value of the local minimum. > > > > Not the X value of the local maximum. > > Not the Y value of the local minimum. > > Not the Y value of the local maximum. > > Nor any other nonsense. > > > But if you wanted the y value of the local minimum, and I gave you > the x value, would you complain? Damn yes I would. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <IAIuRo.r2G.NKDGN@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #60093 |
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 07:09:30PM +0200, Johannes Bauer wrote: > On 15.04.2015 18:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > Minimise often means maximise. Conventionally you search for a minimum, and > > invert the sign if you actually want a maximum. > > That's legitimately confusing, but it's how people who deal with these things > > day in and day out talk. > > If I have the function x^3 - 2x^2 and I ask you for the X value of the > local minimum, I mean the X value of the local minimum. > > Not the X value of the local maximum. > Not the Y value of the local minimum. > Not the Y value of the local maximum. > Nor any other nonsense. > > The burden to get your ideas across is on *you*. You're being sloppy in > your language and when you're confronted with that you go into > full-arrogance mode where you try to defend yourself by claiming "pretty > much everyone does it like this" and that completely opposite concepts > are similar to the point where terms can be used interchangeably. > > You're the one being sloppy and you expect everyone to clean up your > mess after you and interpret your words in the way you MEANT, not the > way you WROTE them. That's incredibly arrogant. > > If you want to express an idea, write down the IDEA not something that > is vaguely or even vastly different and then crying that it's not what > you ACTUALLY meant. That's just being obnoxious and annoying. In Malcolm's defense he is correct in a quasi-general sense in that people use language and words in complex and contradictory ways in some situations. People will say they want peace when they desire 'war'; politicians say they want to reduce poverty when they may in fact wish to increase it to divert more money to otherwise redundant socialist programs; some say they want simplicity when they wish to conceal complexity; or they may advocate tolerance when what they mean is tolerance for intolerance. The most striking dissonance is observed when pronoun pairs such as 'I' and 'you' are used interchangeably. It is a fairly commonplace pathology and it often seems to arise when someone wishes to say something without seeming to say it. I believe linguistic identification of the basic phenomenon at work is known as dynamic grammar, but I do not recall where I read that. This is all to say that a superficially contradictory dialectic is nothing new. In any event people are rather good at "correctly" parsing the intended meaning (authorial intentionality) in such instances from context as there are almost always telling clues accompanying these contradictory usages. It is necessary to be sensitive to the shared context, which may not be obvious or easily apprehended by those of us who are more literal in our thinking. This sort of thing is firmly entrenched in the mainstream of society and can be trivially observed when people use 'sick' to signify that something is 'cool', or 'bad' when they mean 'good'. What is more difficult is inferring the correct meaning in the case where the nominal subject under discussion is some aspect of mathematics. Math simply does not work if the definition of "minimum" or "maximum" deviates from the accepted definition, or if the meaning of terms is otherwise similarly distorted. I doubt Malcolm would ever assert 4 = 5 even for large values of 4, so it is extremely difficult to follow what he means when he suggests a minimum is the same as a maximum along with a bit of handwavium about signs. In this light his usage seems rather Orwellian, if not outright wrong. Perhaps he is simply attempting to convey a subtle joke, and if true I suggest it is in bad taste. But then I am not much of an expert on mathematics so I will leave it to others to clarify this issue in this particular instance. Regards, Steve Thompson -- "If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard hillside garden." -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-16 14:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mgp1h3$nog$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60153 |
On 4/15/2015 11:38 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: > What is more difficult is inferring the correct meaning in the case > where the nominal subject under discussion is some aspect of > mathematics. Math simply does not work if the definition of "minimum" > or "maximum" deviates from the accepted definition, or if the meaning > of terms is otherwise similarly distorted. I doubt Malcolm would ever > assert 4 = 5 even for large values of 4, so it is extremely difficult > to follow what he means when he suggests a minimum is the same as a > maximum along with a bit of handwavium about signs. > In this light his usage seems rather Orwellian, if not outright wrong. > Perhaps he is simply attempting to convey a subtle joke, and if true I > suggest it is in bad taste. But then I am not much of an expert on > mathematics so I will leave it to others to clarify this issue in this > particular instance. I can make some sense of what Malcolm is trying to say about minimum and maximum. < and > are duals. This means that you can, through the appropriate transformations, apply any knowledge you have of one to the other. In particular, any technique for finding a minimum has a corresponding technique for finding a maximum with the same costs, benefits, etc. The bit about roots and minimums is more obscure. Yes, you can transform the problem of finding a root for a function, f, into the problem of finding the minimum of |f|. However, I can't see any advantage to it. You've lost information by doing so (in particular, the sign of f(x)). In the particular case given, you are stuck with a try everything until you find a zero approach instead of being able to perform a binary search. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 09:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mgqclc$c41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60173 |
On 16/04/15 21:12, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 4/15/2015 11:38 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: >> What is more difficult is inferring the correct meaning in the case >> where the nominal subject under discussion is some aspect of >> mathematics. Math simply does not work if the definition of "minimum" >> or "maximum" deviates from the accepted definition, or if the meaning >> of terms is otherwise similarly distorted. I doubt Malcolm would ever >> assert 4 = 5 even for large values of 4, so it is extremely difficult >> to follow what he means when he suggests a minimum is the same as a >> maximum along with a bit of handwavium about signs. > >> In this light his usage seems rather Orwellian, if not outright wrong. >> Perhaps he is simply attempting to convey a subtle joke, and if true I >> suggest it is in bad taste. But then I am not much of an expert on >> mathematics so I will leave it to others to clarify this issue in this >> particular instance. > > I can make some sense of what Malcolm is trying to say about minimum and > maximum. < and > are duals. This means that you can, through the > appropriate transformations, apply any knowledge you have of one to the > other. In particular, any technique for finding a minimum has a > corresponding technique for finding a maximum with the same costs, > benefits, etc. Of course maximums and minimums are duals, and problems of one type can be easily transformed into problems of the other type. But if I want someone to pass me the biggest cake from a tray of cakes, I ask for the biggest one - I don't ask for the smallest one and assume they know what I meant. This is what Malcolm has been doing. > > The bit about roots and minimums is more obscure. Yes, you can transform > the problem of finding a root for a function, f, into the problem of > finding the minimum of |f|. However, I can't see any advantage to it. > You've lost information by doing so (in particular, the sign of f(x)). > In the particular case given, you are stuck with a try everything until > you find a zero approach instead of being able to perform a binary search. > Correct. Mathematically, functions like abs() and sign() are extremely unpleasant to work with. If you want to transform finding a root into finding a minimum, you would work with f²(x) instead. But it is unlikely to be of any help - using numerical methods it is usually a easier to find a zero than to find a minimum (and using algebraic methods, you find minimums by finding the zeros of f'(x) ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 09:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mgr5hm$4pu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60201 |
On 4/17/2015 2:28 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 16/04/15 21:12, Martin Shobe wrote: >> I can make some sense of what Malcolm is trying to say about minimum and >> maximum. < and > are duals. This means that you can, through the >> appropriate transformations, apply any knowledge you have of one to the >> other. In particular, any technique for finding a minimum has a >> corresponding technique for finding a maximum with the same costs, >> benefits, etc. > > Of course maximums and minimums are duals, and problems of one type can > be easily transformed into problems of the other type. But if I want > someone to pass me the biggest cake from a tray of cakes, I ask for the > biggest one - I don't ask for the smallest one and assume they know what > I meant. This is what Malcolm has been doing. Yes. His behavior reminds me of a "game" I sometimes see children play where someone announces that they know something and then dribble just enough bits and pieces to keep the audience going. >> The bit about roots and minimums is more obscure. Yes, you can transform >> the problem of finding a root for a function, f, into the problem of >> finding the minimum of |f|. However, I can't see any advantage to it. >> You've lost information by doing so (in particular, the sign of f(x)). >> In the particular case given, you are stuck with a try everything until >> you find a zero approach instead of being able to perform a binary search. > Correct. Mathematically, functions like abs() and sign() are extremely > unpleasant to work with. If you want to transform finding a root into > finding a minimum, you would work with f²(x) instead. But it is > unlikely to be of any help - using numerical methods it is usually a > easier to find a zero than to find a minimum (and using algebraic > methods, you find minimums by finding the zeros of f'(x) ). Agreed. I really can't think of a situation where you'd want to make such a transformation. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 02:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7699065-b0d1-41e7-8f77-e81968b71ece@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60173 |
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:12:42 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > On 4/15/2015 11:38 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: > > The bit about roots and minimums is more obscure. Yes, you can transform > the problem of finding a root for a function, f, into the problem of > finding the minimum of |f|. However, I can't see any advantage to it. > You've lost information by doing so (in particular, the sign of f(x)). > In the particular case given, you are stuck with a try everything until > you find a zero approach instead of being able to perform a binary search. > You could square a function, then pass it to a general-purpose minimiser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 09:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mgr63r$714$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60210 |
On 4/17/2015 4:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:12:42 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: >> On 4/15/2015 11:38 PM, Steve Thompson wrote: >> >> The bit about roots and minimums is more obscure. Yes, you can transform >> the problem of finding a root for a function, f, into the problem of >> finding the minimum of |f|. However, I can't see any advantage to it. >> You've lost information by doing so (in particular, the sign of f(x)). >> In the particular case given, you are stuck with a try everything until >> you find a zero approach instead of being able to perform a binary search. >> > You could square a function, then pass it to a general-purpose minimiser. Squaring has the same problems. In the case given, squaring the function and taking the absolute value of the function result in the exact same function. You are once again forced into a brute-force search of the entire space because you've lost the all the information that could have been gleaned from each test point. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <89c7e8d7-525a-4c9c-be06-d0e5cdf55427@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #60234 |
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:43:09 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: > > Squaring has the same problems. In the case given, squaring the function > and taking the absolute value of the function result in the exact same > function. You are once again forced into a brute-force search of the > entire space because you've lost the all the information that could have > been gleaned from each test point. > The entire space is zero to infinity. So if our only option is a brute force search of the entire space, the algorithm will never terminate. But that doesn't mean we don't have better strategy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-17 17:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mgs07n$h0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60237 |
On 4/17/2015 10:04 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:43:09 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote: >> >> Squaring has the same problems. In the case given, squaring the function >> and taking the absolute value of the function result in the exact same >> function. You are once again forced into a brute-force search of the >> entire space because you've lost the all the information that could have >> been gleaned from each test point. >> > The entire space is zero to infinity. So if our only option is a brute force search > of the entire space, the algorithm will never terminate. In the given case, the search space is countable and the functions all have roots. There are brute force searches which always terminate. > But that doesn't mean we don't have better strategy. Such as don't square it and send it to a general find minimum function. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web