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

Groups > comp.programming > #6497 > unrolled thread

Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

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.

Contents

  Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:19 -0700
    Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 22:34 -0700
      Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-04-18 15:14 -0500
        Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 23:16 -0700

#6497 — Re: I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction

W dniu poniedziałek, 18 kwietnia 2016 03:15:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Ramine napisał:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction..
> 
> I think that we have also to prove by contradiction...
> 
> If the serial part of the Amdahl's law is 1/16 the overall
> parallel program, so when you will test with USL with
> fewer cores and fewer threads, let say 8, you can
> escape contention on the serial part, and this will
> make the nonlinear regression of USL to fail to predict
> in this particular case, so since it fails on this
> particular case , so this makes the USL methodology
> to fail, it is like a proof by contradiction in
> mathematics.
> 
> So from this, how can we believe this USL methodology ?
> i think that Dr. Gunther the author of USL methodology
> must explain to us what is this magical thing that makes
> his USL methodology succeed.
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.

how many money you consider to pay for spamming the groups

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6498

W dniu poniedziałek, 18 kwietnia 2016 07:20:01 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 18 kwietnia 2016 03:15:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Ramine napisał:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > 
> > I correct, please reread my proof by contradiction..
> > 
> > I think that we have also to prove by contradiction...
> > 
> > If the serial part of the Amdahl's law is 1/16 the overall
> > parallel program, so when you will test with USL with
> > fewer cores and fewer threads, let say 8, you can
> > escape contention on the serial part, and this will
> > make the nonlinear regression of USL to fail to predict
> > in this particular case, so since it fails on this
> > particular case , so this makes the USL methodology
> > to fail, it is like a proof by contradiction in
> > mathematics.
> > 
> > So from this, how can we believe this USL methodology ?
> > i think that Dr. Gunther the author of USL methodology
> > must explain to us what is this magical thing that makes
> > his USL methodology succeed.
> > 
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Amine Moulay Ramdane.
> 
> how many money you consider to pay for spamming the groups

wonder if donkey ram understands this message, i tried like 10 times out of curiosity but extraordinary idiot and bore seem to get not any point - though his damage is real and i think he should pay damages to this group even also in my own hands, so donkey ram be aware

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6518

On 4/18/16 12:34 AM, fir wrote:

> wonder if donkey ram understands this message, i tried
 > like 10 times out of curiosity but extraordinary idiot
 > and bore seem to get not any point - though his damage
 > is real and i think he should pay damages to this group
 > even also in my own hands, so donkey ram be aware

No, the real question is why you keep replying to spam?

A spammer usually doesn't even bother to read any of the
posts in a newsgroup, including replies to their own posts.

If you are correctly assessing their motivation for posting,
then there is practically zero chance they will even see your
insult postings.

All you're doing is making things worse.


-- 
Randy Howard
(replace the obvious text in the obvious way if you wish to contact me 
directly)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6525

W dniu poniedziałek, 18 kwietnia 2016 22:14:27 UTC+2 użytkownik Randy Howard napisał:
> On 4/18/16 12:34 AM, fir wrote:
> 
> > wonder if donkey ram understands this message, i tried
>  > like 10 times out of curiosity but extraordinary idiot
>  > and bore seem to get not any point - though his damage
>  > is real and i think he should pay damages to this group
>  > even also in my own hands, so donkey ram be aware
> 
> No, the real question is why you keep replying to spam?
> 
> A spammer usually doesn't even bother to read any of the
> posts in a newsgroup, including replies to their own posts.
> 
> If you are correctly assessing their motivation for posting,
> then there is practically zero chance they will even see your
> insult postings.
> 
> All you're doing is making things worse.
> 
> 
I do is in a "try" attitude
Donkey produces a hundreds of new topics flodding this group, ignoring the basic sane ask of notdonkey  spaming - if to treat/enlight him as an idiot and abuser
as consequently as he spam  he could be
ridiculed as a donkey here and maybe it could help - just wanted to try (not that it such be used in generall as this re-spaming i try on donkey is also spam, but
ram-donkey is the one so obvious abuser
idiot on the whole usenet he is kinda idiotic special)
His spaming is very bad as he destroyed this group and still keeps it dead

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web