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

Groups > comp.programming > #8493 > unrolled thread

I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. computer45 <computer45@cyber.com> - 2018-03-20 00:00 -0400
    I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 11:28 -0700
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-20 18:42 +0000
        Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:00 +0000
        Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:22 +0100
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2018-03-20 20:02 +0000
        Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:23 -0700
      Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:07 +0100
        Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-20 13:25 -0700
          Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2018-03-20 21:44 +0100
            Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-03-21 13:28 +0100
              Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 08:19 -0700
                Re: I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof.. Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-03-22 18:13 +0000

#8493 — I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..

Hello,

Read this:

I will provide you with a more rigorous logical proof..

You have seen me before proving to you my scalable reference counting
algorithm that i have "invented" and i have debugged it and i think it 
is working correctly, but I will provide you with a more rigorous 
logical proof soon and i will include it on the zip file, so that i will 
perhaps sell it to Embarcadero and to other software companies.

I am still inventing scalable algorithms and other algorithms.

My next invention is a FIFO queue that is waitfree on the
producer side and that is lockfree on the consumer side and that
will use my new scalable reference counting.

So stay tuned my algorithm inventions and there implementations
are coming soon.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane,.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8503

Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions. 

And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though. It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it diverges to using universal quantifiers.

Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.

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

#8505

On 20/03/18 18:28, Chad wrote:
> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and proof by contradiction.

You're missing some:

proof by repetition (it worked twice, so it works)
proof by project manager (ready or not, it ships on Friday)
proof by intimidation (I have a scary diagram, so we do it my way)

I'm sure there are plenty more.

-- 
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]

#8511

In article <p8rkmk$5i8$1@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield  <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>On 20/03/18 18:28, Chad wrote:
>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
>proof by contradiction.
>
>You're missing some:
>
>proof by repetition (it worked twice, so it works)
>proof by project manager (ready or not, it ships on Friday)
>proof by intimidation (I have a scary diagram, so we do it my way)
>
>I'm sure there are plenty more.

Proof by committee fiat.
Proof by advisor.
Proof by indignation.
Etc....

	- Dan C.

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

#8521

On 20/03/18 19:42, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 20/03/18 18:28, Chad wrote:
>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math
>> proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
>> proof by contradiction.
> 
> You're missing some:
> 
> proof by repetition (it worked twice, so it works)
> proof by project manager (ready or not, it ships on Friday)
> proof by intimidation (I have a scary diagram, so we do it my way)
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty more.
> 

Proof by repeated assertion (I've told you a dozen times that it works).
Proof by insulting (you're an idiot, so my code is correct).
Proof by self-acknowledgement (I am a genius, therefore my code works).
Proof by paranoia (you are mean to me, it must be because my code is great).
Proof by bafflement (the code use multilayer asynchronous caching with
lock-free algorithms based on the Reinmann hypothesis, so it must be right).
Proof by promise (my code is right, I will give you the proof later).
Proof by appeal to authority (Knuth said something similar, therefore my
code is correct).
Proof by delusion (the code came to me in a dream, it must be divine and
therefore correct).

I think these are just some of the techniques used by the OP here!

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

#8512

In article <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com>,
Chad  <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
>proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions. 
>
>And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though.

Proofs that use epsilon/delta reductions tend to fall into the category of constructive proofs.

>It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis.

I think you mean analysis.

	- Dan C.

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

#8516

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:02:39 PM UTC-7, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <825fb3d0-c2df-483b-8779-b9dc71327180@googlegroups.com>,
> Chad  <cdalten@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and
> >proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions. 
> >
> >And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though.
> 
> Proofs that use epsilon/delta reductions tend to fall into the category of constructive proofs.
> 
> >It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis.
> 
> I think you mean analysis.
> 

Yeah. You're right. It is analysis. 

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

#8515

On 20-3-2018 19:28, Chad wrote:
> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions.
>
> And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though. It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it diverges to using universal quantifiers.
>
> Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.
>
You think you can educate a 20 year long addict to
daily trolling?

Killfile him.

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

#8517

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:07:58 PM UTC-7, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 20-3-2018 19:28, Chad wrote:
> > Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions.
> >
> > And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though. It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it diverges to using universal quantifiers.
> >
> > Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.
> >
> You think you can educate a 20 year long addict to
> daily trolling?
> 

I would, but I've seen like three marginally interesting posts by this person.

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

#8518

On 20-3-2018 21:25, Chad wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:07:58 PM UTC-7, Sjouke Burry wrote:
>> On 20-3-2018 19:28, Chad wrote:
>>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve both necessary and sufficient conditions.
>>>
>>> And there is also a class of proofs that involve using delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though. It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it diverges to using universal quantifiers.
>>>
>>> Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.
>>>
>> You think you can educate a 20 year long addict to
>> daily trolling?
>>
>
> I would, but I've seen like three marginally interesting posts by this person.
>
He changes his nym(now computer45),
and talks and answers his own questions.

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

#8522

On 20/03/18 21:44, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 20-3-2018 21:25, Chad wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:07:58 PM UTC-7, Sjouke Burry wrote:
>>> On 20-3-2018 19:28, Chad wrote:
>>>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math
>>>> proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction
>>>> and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve
>>>> both necessary and sufficient conditions.
>>>>
>>>> And there is also a class of proofs that involve using
>>>> delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though.
>>>> It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it
>>>> involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it
>>>> diverges to using universal quantifiers.
>>>>
>>>> Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer
>>>> and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.
>>>>
>>> You think you can educate a 20 year long addict to
>>> daily trolling?
>>>
>>
>> I would, but I've seen like three marginally interesting posts by this
>> person.

Which of his posts are of even marginal interest?  I suppose it could
happen that occasionally he will write something interesting.  After
all, /you/ managed to make several posts in a row that were not obscene,
chauvinist or part of a meaningless flame war.

>>
> He changes his nym(now computer45),
> and talks and answers his own questions.

What bugs me most is the absurd creation of new "Read again, I correct"
threads to post the same thing again and again with nothing but a
negligible spelling correction.

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

#8531

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:28:31 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/03/18 21:44, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> > On 20-3-2018 21:25, Chad wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 1:07:58 PM UTC-7, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> >>> On 20-3-2018 19:28, Chad wrote:
> >>>> Well that pretty much narrows it down to like how many types of math
> >>>> proofs used in programming? The one I know are proof by Induction
> >>>> and proof by contradiction. I've also done some proofs that involve
> >>>> both necessary and sufficient conditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> And there is also a class of proofs that involve using
> >>>> delta/epsilon. I'm that that sure what the formal name of it though.
> >>>> It is similar to the first part of proof by Induction in that it
> >>>> involves using algebra for the hypothesis. But after that, it
> >>>> diverges to using universal quantifiers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Omfg, I'm not versed like you. My excuse is that I'm a programmer
> >>>> and not a genius that spams this forum with the same recycled crap.
> >>>>
> >>> You think you can educate a 20 year long addict to
> >>> daily trolling?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would, but I've seen like three marginally interesting posts by this
> >> person.
> 
> Which of his posts are of even marginal interest?  I suppose it could
> happen that occasionally he will write something interesting.  After
> all, /you/ managed to make several posts in a row that were not obscene,
> chauvinist or part of a meaningless flame war.
> 

His (almost correct) analysis on one of Microsofts algorithms was kind of interesting because for one brief second, well, it appeared that he might have been onto something. In retrospect, I was probably wrong. I blame the pain killers.

And some of his programming work that he spams on here is kind of interesting in the respect that I would probably seriously consider using some form of it in a production environment at work. 
> >>
> > He changes his nym(now computer45),
> > and talks and answers his own questions.
> 
> What bugs me most is the absurd creation of new "Read again, I correct"
> threads to post the same thing again and again with nothing but a
> negligible spelling correction.

Well, I don't mean to defend this spammer, but I have the same issues when reply from smartphone. This is because the keyboard layout on a standard smartphone, well, kind of sucks. As a result, I tend to make some typos.

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

#8535

On 22/03/18 15:19, Chad wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 5:28:31 AM UTC-7, David Brown wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> What bugs me most is the absurd creation of new "Read again, I correct"
>> threads to post the same thing again and again with nothing but a
>> negligible spelling correction.
> 
> Well, I don't mean to defend this spammer, but I have the same issues when reply from smartphone. This is because the keyboard layout on a standard smartphone, well, kind of sucks. As a result, I tend to make some typos.

The time to correct typing errors is before publication. After 
publication, a correction only makes sense if it replaces the existing 
publication (e.g. a fix on a Web site). If it becomes a near-duplicate 
of an existing message (as on Usenet or in SMS messages), that's nearly 
always a pointless waste of time for the reader, because the reader has 
probably already worked out what we meant when he or she read the first 
incarnation of the message.

-- 
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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web