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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665306 > unrolled thread

Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs] (Re: Novacore goes Bisimulation: Scryer Prolog is Slow!)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

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: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs] (Re: Novacore goes Bisimulation: Scryer Prolog is Slow!) Jordon Molokovsky <ovm@lorr.ru> - 2025-07-28 12:56 +0000
    I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-28 17:18 +0200
      Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs]) Emile Paduchev <mcc@clleeeme.ru> - 2025-07-28 15:53 +0000
        The difference is only in one letter "t" or "d" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-28 21:20 +0200
    Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs]) Alton Grammatakakis <kl@aaasi.gr> - 2025-07-28 16:09 +0000
      You literally wrote "overheat" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-28 21:21 +0200
        Re: You literally wrote "overheat" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs]) Neury Valetov <ntt@uovrav.ru> - 2025-07-28 19:44 +0000
          Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat" (Was: You literally wrote "overheat") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-29 15:56 +0200
            Re: Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat" (Was: You literally wrote "overheat") Mizraim Zelenenkov <iall@zm.ru> - 2025-07-29 16:00 +0000
              Why Russ Bots Again: Micro Penis? (Re: Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-29 23:17 +0200

#665306 — Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs] (Re: Novacore goes Bisimulation: Scryer Prolog is Slow!)

Mild Shock wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Assume that we live in a world where we have excess memory. So we can
> afford stacks! And then make the crucial observation,
> 
> we can use the stack of the Prolog engine,
> no need to create an artificial stack in C,
> or use the native stack of C.
> 
> I guess SWI-Prolog has already groked the first we can "afford stacks".
> But did anybody already grok the "100% Prolog" idea?
> 
> Well we are not yet there 100% Prolog has still an overhead. Here is a
> little test acyclic_term/2:
> 
> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.26, C Stacks and/or Agendas */ ?-
> time((between(1,30,_), acyclic2, fail; true)).
> % 330,150 inferences, 0.016 CPU in 0.023 seconds (69% CPU, 21129600
> Lips) true.

you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of memory 
required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's decoder, 
together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline, ignoring the 
pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks' ARE memory, not 
something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#665307 — I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs])

I guess your brain was "overheating".

LoL

The problem of L1, L2, L3, cache trashing through
writes,  is not overheating, but it gets awfully slow,
creating an overhead not overheating.

Cache trashing (or cache thrashing) in the context
of L1, L2, and L3 CPU caches is a performance issue,
not a thermal one.

Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
> Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Assume that we live in a world where we have excess memory. So we can
>> afford stacks! And then make the crucial observation,
>>
>> we can use the stack of the Prolog engine,
>> no need to create an artificial stack in C,
>> or use the native stack of C.
>>
>> I guess SWI-Prolog has already groked the first we can "afford stacks".
>> But did anybody already grok the "100% Prolog" idea?
>>
>> Well we are not yet there 100% Prolog has still an overhead. Here is a
>> little test acyclic_term/2:
>>
>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.26, C Stacks and/or Agendas */ ?-
>> time((between(1,30,_), acyclic2, fail; true)).
>> % 330,150 inferences, 0.016 CPU in 0.023 seconds (69% CPU, 21129600
>> Lips) true.
> 
> you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of memory
> required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's decoder,
> together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline, ignoring the
> pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks' ARE memory, not
> something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.
> 

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

#665308 — Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs])

Mild Shock wrote:

> I guess your brain was "overheating".
> 
> LoL
> 
> The problem of L1, L2, L3, cache trashing through writes,  is not
> overheating, but it gets awfully slow,
> creating an overhead not overheating.

yet the uneducated visiting professor imbecile, undrestanding nothing all 
areas in everything. Nobody said 'overheating', cant you read the 
punctuation, you lying piece of shit

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

#665313 — The difference is only in one letter "t" or "d" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating")

overheat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overheating_(electricity)

overhead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_(computing)

Emile Paduchev schrieb:
> Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> I guess your brain was "overheating".
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> The problem of L1, L2, L3, cache trashing through writes,  is not
>> overheating, but it gets awfully slow,
>> creating an overhead not overheating.
> 
> yet the uneducated visiting professor imbecile, undrestanding nothing all
> areas in everything. Nobody said 'overheating', cant you read the
> punctuation, you lying piece of shit
> 

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

#665309 — Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs])

Mild Shock wrote:

> The problem of L1, L2, L3, cache trashing through writes,  is not
> overheating, but it gets awfully slow,
> creating an overhead not overheating.

so fooling around needlessly in CPU's cache is not increasing the
temperature.. ; get yourself a proper education, before opening your
stupid mouth.

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

#665314 — You literally wrote "overheat" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs])

You literally wrote "overheat" here:

Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
 > you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based
 > on the size of memory required, and the number of
 > instructions sent to the CPU's decoder, together with
 > data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline, ignoring the
 > pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks'
 > ARE memory, not something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

Maybe you russian bots should use a better ChatGPT translator?

Alton Grammatakakis schrieb:
> Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> The problem of L1, L2, L3, cache trashing through writes,  is not
>> overheating, but it gets awfully slow,
>> creating an overhead not overheating.
> 
> so fooling around needlessly in CPU's cache is not increasing the
> temperature.. ; get yourself a proper education, before opening your
> stupid mouth.
> 

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

#665315 — Re: You literally wrote "overheat" (Re: I guess your brain was "overheating" (Re: The End of Deutsch-Schorr-Waite [cycle_detection.rs])

Mild Shock wrote:


> You literally wrote "overheat" here:
> 
> Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
>  > you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of
>  > memory required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's
>  > decoder, together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline,
>  > ignoring the pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks'
>  > ARE memory, not something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

sense the punctuation, cretin, that's not overheating, then fucking around 
like stupid in CPU is overheating. Educate yourself civilized maner, 
idiot.

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

#665317 — Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat" (Was: You literally wrote "overheat")

Hi,

Yeah don't do this things:
- Don't overclock you CPU if system has poor airflow
- Do not use PC as a ram server rack, power supply not designed for it
- Refrain from usings computers alltogether, you seem to be a moron.

LoL

Bye

Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
 > you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of
 > memory required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's
 > decoder, together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline,
 > ignoring the pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks'
 > ARE memory, not something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

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

#665318 — Re: Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat" (Was: You literally wrote "overheat")

Mild Shock wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Yeah don't do this things:
> - Don't overclock you CPU if system has poor airflow - Do not use PC as
> a ram server rack, power supply not designed for it - Refrain from
> usings computers alltogether, you seem to be a moron. LoL Bye

you stupid polak kike just proved your imbecility in computers and 
related, not knowing what you do. Get yourself a proper education, you 
stupid fraud wannabe scientist.

> Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
>  > you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of
>  > memory required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's
>  > decoder, together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline,
>  > ignoring the pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks'
>  > ARE memory, not something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

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

#665320 — Why Russ Bots Again: Micro Penis? (Re: Don't put large memory in your computer it might "overheat")

Hoi Luigi

Again problems with your micro penis?

Bye

Mizraim Zelenenkov schrieb:
> Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah don't do this things:
>> - Don't overclock you CPU if system has poor airflow - Do not use PC as
>> a ram server rack, power supply not designed for it - Refrain from
>> usings computers alltogether, you seem to be a moron. LoL Bye
> 
> you stupid polak kike just proved your imbecility in computers and
> related, not knowing what you do. Get yourself a proper education, you
> stupid fraud wannabe scientist.
> 
>> Jordon Molokovsky schrieb:
>>   > you assume too much. The 'overheat' is merely based on the size of
>>   > memory required, and the number of instructions sent to the CPU's
>>   > decoder, together with data, occupying the bus, through the pipeline,
>>   > ignoring the pipeline etc. Not directly related to time. And 'stacks'
>>   > ARE memory, not something to 'afford as excess' fucking stoopid.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web