Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #4981

More philosophy about scalability..

Show all headers | View raw

Hello..


More philosophy about scalability..

As i said:

"To be "convinced" of my writing, we can notice that from the running 
hardware we can extract the ideas of the software(or the software), so 
from empiricism we can get rationalism."

And i wrote:

"But i think that the right definition is also to include the running 
software that is physical as the definition of a software."


I mean that the "set" that is called the "existence" of a software
can be composed of a the ideas of the software extracted from
the running hardware, so empiricism gives rationalism, so
that when you see a hardware running , you can say that this
hardware that is running engender that ideas of the software that is 
called the running software, and the engendered ideas of the software
are running in the time scale, so the running software has
a scalability that can be the  new "speed" of the running software 
relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or 
there in the reference of time.

Read the rest of my previous thoughts so to understand:

More explanation about scalability..

I said yesterday the following:

"What do you think is an idea in philosophy ?
An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material.
So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition
of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we 
will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, 
this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software 
as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so
with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running 
software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a 
running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a 
running software that is material and also with its ideas that are 
immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the 
running software that is physical as the definition of a software."


To be "convinced" of my above writing, we can notice that from the 
running hardware we can extract the ideas of the software(or the 
software), so from empiricism we can get rationalism.


Read the rest of my previous thoughts:


I think we have to be more smart about scalability..

I think we have to understand philosophy correctly:

What do you think is an idea in philosophy ?

An idea in philosophy can be immaterial or material.

So if an idea is immaterial , we will not allow the definition
of an idea as a running idea that is physical, but if it is material we 
will allow the definition of an idea as a running idea that is physical, 
this is the basis of logic. So more importantly we can define a software 
as only ideas that we think with our logical reasoning and minds, so
with this we will exclude in the definition the software as a running 
software that is physical, but we can also define a software as a 
running ideas that are material so that we can define a software as a 
running software that is material and also with its ideas that are 
immaterial. But i think that the right definition is also to include the 
running software that is physical as the definition of a software and 
this is why i wrote the following in my previous writing about scalability:

My new and final logical proof about scalability..

I have proved below that:

"An understanding of a concept is a running concept"

But i have to be more smart, so follow me:

What do you think is an idea ?

Since:

"An understanding of a concept is a running concept"

So an idea too is a running idea.


But what is a software ?

A software is composed of a running software and
text of a oftware.

But since a software is a running software too, so
the running software is the hardware, so software scalability
is the concept and also the running software scalability that
is the hardware, so we can infer logically that even if the program
is single threaded and it runs on a more powerful hardware,
the running software scalability will be the new more powerful hardware
that compose the running  software scalability, thus my logical proof is 
complete.

Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more:

More logical proof about scalability:

I will now prove the following to be able for you to see the big 
picture, i said the following:

"An understanding of a concept is a running concept"


My logical proof of it is the following:

You have to read first  my previous writing below that say
the following:

"In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of 
democracy,but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is 
understood by our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of 
democracy, i mean a running concept of democracy in our mind."

So as you are noticing consciousness and understanding of the concept of 
democracy is a running concept of democracy, so this part is logical 
from the above, so we can logically infer that: "An understanding of a 
concept is a running concept", because the understanding of a concept 
comes from a running concept of our mind and consciousness and it comes 
from the running concept of the outside reality, so it is in both
a running concept, hence logically we can say: "An understanding of a 
concept is a running concept".

Read my previous following thoughts to understand:


My final thoughts about scalability..

I think that i am like proving the following: An understanding of a 
concept is a running concept, because to be able to be an understanding 
of a concept there must be a running concept, and the running concept 
permits us to measure the running concept, so the running concept of 
democracy permits us to say that "democracy" is good or not, that's the 
same for software scalability, because the software scalability is also 
the running concept of software scalability that permits us to measure 
the running concept of scalability, so we can finally say that software 
scalability is also the running software scalability , and this running 
concept of software scalability is the new "speed" of the software 
relatively to the old speed, and the old speed can be fixed here or 
there in the reference of time.

Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand more:


I think i have to do more philosophy about scalability..

I said the following:

"The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort 
mode will go to around 12X"


In political philosophy we have what we call the "concept" of democracy,
but we have to know that the concept of democracy that is understood by
our mind and consciousness is a "running" concept of democracy, i mean
a running concept of democracy in our mind.

That's the same for software scalability, software scalability is not
just the concept, software scalability is also the running concept of
software scalability, and this running concept of software scalability 
is the new "speed" of the software relatively to the old speed, and the 
old speed can be fixed here or there in the reference of time, this is 
why when i say that:

"The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort 
mode will go to around 12X"

It also means the "running" concept of scalability.


So read my below previous writing to understand more:


More explanation about scalability..

As you have noticed i said below the following:

"The actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort 
mode will go to around 12X"

You have to distinguish between the scalability that is the combination 
of scalability of hardware and software, and the scalability that is 
only software or only hardware.

So you have to know that i am speaking below about the "total" 
scalability of both the hardware(from one channel memory to 8 channels
memory) and software on actual Intel and AMD processors, but 3D stacking
of memory will give much more scalability.


Read again:

About Multi-channel memory architecture and my Parallel Sort Library..

On actual Intel and AMD processors data is moved from and to main memory 
only in 64 bytes chunks, so in a 8 channels of a Multi-channel memory 
architecture in a ganged mode, i think that the memory speed of
my Parallel Sort library in the mergesort mode will go to 8X speed,
and the actual scalability of my Parallel Sort Library in the mergesort 
mode will go to around 12X. So i will advice you to use the ganged mode 
of the Multi-channel memory architecture because it works great.

My Parallel Sort Library was updated to version 3.64

I have enhanced it more, and i think it is stable and fast
and it scales more.

You can download it from:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/parallel-sort-library


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

More philosophy about scalability.. Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com> - 2019-03-29 06:15 -0700

csiph-web