NOTHING is complex or difficul...
Amine
> [...]
> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficulT
My prof:
You have said complex ?
Is it just a false impression ?
Or is it the truth ?
Does the complex or difficul really exist ?
Even if we don't comprehend the things
*NOTHING* is complex or difficul.
To say something is complex or difficul is just a FALSE impression
Why ?
If you don't comprehend a thing
and
you have a false impression of it
and
another person has comprehend *COMPLETLY* the same thing
where now the truth lies ?
In the complete understanding side ?
or in the not complete understanding side ?
The truth is:
It is in the understanding side.
And
Since as soon as you COMPREHEND the thing *COMPLETLY*
The thing will become SIMPLE
and this final impression IS the REAL truth.
Hence, *NOTHING* is complex or difficul.
And dont forget to read my poems:
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
Amine
Now if someone have FINALLY completly comprehend the thing
but he still say to to you something liket:
"I have finally understand completly the thing ,
but i have found the thing complex and difficult !"
Is his affirmation false or true ?
If you have noticed when he said :
"...i have found the thing complex and difficul !"
that's just his recalling of past memory IMPRESSIONS
that are still *FALSE*.
So my above proof still stand in this case also.
Regards,
Amine.
Amine
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex...
It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the
opposite direction."
Albert Einstein
And i have tried to give the proof of my following affirmation:
"NOTHING is complex or difficult"
And dont forget to read my poems:
:)
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
> Amine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Schwartz
> Since as soon as you COMPREHEND the thing *COMPLETLY*
> The thing will become SIMPLE
If the thing can *become* simple, it must before have been difficult.
> and this final impression IS the REAL truth.
>
> Hence, *NOTHING* is complex or difficul.
You've simply shown that you don't mean what everyone else means by
"complex" or "difficult". If it takes massive effort to understand
something, that thing is "difficult", regardless of how it appears
once that understanding is complete. That's what "difficult" means.
If some huge effort or complex process is required to make something
simple, then before it was made simple, it was difficult.
You could equally argue that nothing is black since it can be painted
red.
DS
Amine
On Aug 1, 6:57 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:36 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > Since as soon as you COMPREHEND the thing *COMPLETLY*
> > The thing will become SIMPLE
>
> If the thing can *become* simple, it must before have been difficult.
No you are not right my dear David Schwartz
Please follow with me:
I wrote this:
>Now if someone have FINALLY completly comprehend the thing
>but he still say to you something like:
>"I have finally understand completly the thing ,
>but i have found the thing complex and difficult !"
>Is his affirmation false or true ?
>If you have noticed when he said :
> "...i have found the thing complex and difficul !"
>that's just his recalling of past memory IMPRESSIONS
>that are still *FALSE*.
>So my above proof still stand in this case also.
And David Schwartz responded:
> If the thing can *become* simple, it must before have been difficult.
The thing have become SIMPLE: that's TRUE.
But before: it was just SUBJECTIVE and a FALSE impression
since it was not *COMPLETLY* comprehended.
So that's why his affirmation:
"...i have found the thing complex and difficult !"
Was FALSE.
and his FINAL affirmation:
"I have finally understand completly the thing"
IS the TRUTH.
It imply:
He have finally COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the thing
and
The thing has become SIMPLE and NOT difficult
and
The thing was not at all difficul before.
Think about it....
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
And the thing has become SIMPLE and NOT difficult
and that's the TRUTH: that the thing is NOT difficult.
Since if you have read carefully i wrote in my proof
:
"where now the truth lies ?
In the complete understanding side ?
or in the not complete understanding side ?
The truth is:
It is in the understanding side."
So my proof still stand.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
I correct:
And the thing has become SIMPLE and NOT difficult
and
if you have read carefully the part in my proof
(please reread again my proof):
:
"where now the truth lies ?
In the complete understanding side ?
or in the not complete understanding side ?
The truth is:
It is in the understanding side."
this imply:
The thing is NOT difficult.
And my proof still stand.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
> So my proof still stand.
>
> Regards,
> Amine Moulay Ramdane.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Think about it....
>
> > Regards,
> > Amine Moulay Ramdane.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Amine
Cause the final information: the thing has become
SIMPLE and NOT difficult
is OBJECTIVE
and
It's the TRUTH.
That's all.
Regards,
Amine.
:
David Schwartz
> > If the thing can *become* simple, it must before have been difficult.
> No you are not right my dear David Schwartz
Yes, I am right.
> Please follow with me:
>
> I wrote this:
>
> >Now if someone have FINALLY completly comprehend the thing
> >but he still say to you something like:
> >"I have finally understand completly the thing ,
> >but i have found the thing complex and difficult !"
> >Is his affirmation false or true ?
> >If you have noticed when he said :
> > "...i have found the thing complex and difficul !"
> >that's just his recalling of past memory IMPRESSIONS
> >that are still *FALSE*.
> >So my above proof still stand in this case also.
>
> And David Schwartz responded:
>
> > If the thing can *become* simple, it must before have been difficult.
>
> The thing have become SIMPLE: that's TRUE.
>
> But before: it was just SUBJECTIVE and a FALSE impression
> since it was not *COMPLETLY* comprehended.
Right, and that is what difficult means.
> So that's why his affirmation:
> "...i have found the thing complex and difficult !"
>
> Was FALSE.
No, it was true.
> and his FINAL affirmation:
>
> "I have finally understand completly the thing"
>
> IS the TRUTH.
Right, and THAT IS WHAT DIFFICULT MEANS.
> It imply:
>
> He have finally COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the thing
>
> and
>
> The thing has become SIMPLE and NOT difficult
>
> and
>
> The thing was not at all difficul before.
>
> Think about it....
I have. You are wrong. When we say something is difficult, we *mean*
that complex effort is required to understand it.
You keep saying that some process shows it is not difficult. But
"difficult" means that such a process is required to understand it.
If it were in fact not difficult, no such process would be necessary.
DS
David Schwartz
Are you mentally defective in some way? Seriously.
> Cause the final information: the thing has become
> SIMPLE and NOT difficult
Right, and that such a thing is required is what it means to call
something "difficult".
> is OBJECTIVE
>
> and
>
> It's the TRUTH.
>
> That's all.
Right, and that's what it means to say something is "difficult".
When I say "X is difficult", what I mean is that just such a process
is required in order to understand it. Whatever you realize at the
end, the fact that you had to travel the path to get to the end proves
that it was in fact difficult because that is what the word
"difficult" means.
DS
Amine
> On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> Are you mentally defective in some way?
Reread my post.
Discution stoped.
Chris M. Thomasson
news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> David Schwartz wrote:
>> [...]
>> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
>
> I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficulT
Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
Amine
> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
>
> [...]
>
> Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
> and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.
Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
is complex: right ?
But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE , it needs more
UNDERSTANDING
to become the TRUTH, and as soon as it become the TRUTH , this thing
that we call the universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
Let us look at the big PROCESS of the universe like a GRAPH with
state
and transitions, now if you are trying to understand all the GRAPH ,
and
you have STILL not understand the GRAPH , this will not make the all
the
GRAPH complex and difficul , it's just a SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF all the
GRAPH , just a false IMPRESSION , and this subjective VIEW does
STILL NOT make the thing that is all the UNIVERSE complex or
difficult.
Now as soon as you understand COMPLETLY the GRAPH , that will be
the OBJECTIVE view of all the GRAPH and this will FINALLY make this
thing that we call all the universe SIMPLE and EASY, and this final
process of understanding is the REAL TRUTH.
And the proof - that a gave you - of the follow affirmation:
"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"
does work.
Do you undertand now or you want more my dear Chris M. Thomasson :)
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
> On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> Are you mentally defective in some way? Seriously.
Read more:
On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
> > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
> [...]
> Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
> and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M.
Thomasson.
Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
Now if you look at the universe you will say that this THING
is complex: right ?
But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
Let us look at the big PROCESS of the universe like a
GRAPH with state and transitions, now if you are trying
to understand all the GRAPH , and you have STILL not
understand the GRAPH , this will not make all
the GRAPH complex and difficul , it's just a SUBJECTIVE
VIEW OF all the GRAPH: just a false IMPRESSION , and
this subjective VIEW does STILL NOT make the thing that
is all the UNIVERSE complex or difficult.
Now as soon as you understand COMPLETLY the GRAPH:
that will be the OBJECTIVE view of all the GRAPH and this
will FINALLY make this thing that we call all the universe
SIMPLE and EASY, and this final process of understanding
is the one that matter and it is the REAL TRUTH.
And the proof - that i gave you - of the follow affirmation:
"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"
Does work.
Chris M. Thomasson
On Aug 2, 2:14 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>
> > David Schwartz wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
> >
> > > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the
> > answers
> > and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
> I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M. Thomasson.
> Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
> Now if you look at the unniverse you will say that this THING
> is complex: right ?
[...]
Go ahead and learn exactly how the Universe works. Once your done, come back
and educate the world's scientists. They will be happy and eager to learn
from you.
Chris M. Thomasson
news:vAbdm.82263$zq1...@newsfe22.iad...
Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
process.
For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them.
Amine
Now let me make clear something:
When you say something like: "this thing is SIMPLE"
You have the presence of two things:
Reality = Brain(with the conscience) + universe outside the brain
Can you tell the THING is SIMPLE without the presence of the
Conscience ?
The presence of the conscience is a NECESSITY to be able
to tell that something is SIMPLE
It's the conscience of the thing that makes us judje that it's SIMPLE.
Now continue to read and you will understand:
> "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> news:ece31234-ccb3-4a9d...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> David Schwartz wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> >> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
> > I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficult
> [...]
> Not even the mysteries of the universe? Now, go and learn all the answers
> and come back and tell us all about it. Simple.
I have gave you the proof and it does WORK my dear Chris M.
Thomasson.
Now let's take as an example all the process of the universe.
Now if you look at the universe you will say that this THING
is complex: right ?
But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
Let us look at the big PROCESS of the universe like a
GRAPH with states and transitions, now if you are trying
Amine
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Even if you completely understand the Universe, well, that simply does not
> mean it's makeup is not complex. It just means that you understand a complex
> process.
When you say something like: "this thing is SIMPLE"
You have the presence of two things:
Reality = Brain(with the conscience) + universe outside the brain
Can you tell the THING is SIMPLE or ... without the presence of the
Conscience ?
The presence of the conscience is a NECESSITY to be able
to tell that something is SIMPLE
It's the conscience of the thing that makes us judje that it's
SIMPLE.
> For instance, I understand non-blocking algorithms, and I assert that they
> are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them
Your affirmation that: "they are complex" is also caused by past
SUBJECTIVE views(you have perhaps found them difficult in the process
of understanding), but the TRUTH is: if you undertstand them
COMPLETLY,
they will finally be SIMPLE and EASY.
And please reread my posts on the proof and also the example
with GRAPH (states+transitions) and you will understand more.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
On Aug 2, 4:03 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in messagenews:vAbdm.82263$zq1...@newsfe22.iad...
> are complex regardless of how deep of an understanding I have of them.- Hide quoted text -
Amine
Hello,
Now follow carefully with me my dear Chris M. Thomasson
There is the Reality:
Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain
And with the Universe ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judjment: like it is Complex or NOT.
Right ?
So, when you finally COMPLETLY understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.
Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the universe is COMPLEX.
Tell me now where is the truth ?
And who is right and who is wrong?
It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is right:
this imply that the UNIVERSE is SIMPLE.
Do you finally understand my dear Chris M. Thomasson ?
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Amine
Hello,
I wrote
" Now follow carefully with me my dear Chris M. Thomasson
There is the Reality:
Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain
And with the Universe ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judjment: like it is Complex or NOT.
Right ?
So, when you finally COMPLETLY understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.
Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call universe, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the universe is COMPLEX.
Tell me now where is the truth ?
And who is right and who is wrong?
It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is right:
this imply that the UNIVERSE is SIMPLE."
Now if i ask someone a question like this:
"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing"
and the answer is.
"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"
Is the answer right or wrong ?
Of course the answer is WRONG.
If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
Now if you repeat this reasonning for ALL the THINGS of
the univers (and the univers) you will finally affim catericaly
that:
"*NOTHING* is complex or difficult"
Hence, my proof is correct.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Chris M. Thomasson
[...]
> If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
> of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
>
> The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
Go ahead and tell all the engineers who designed such systems that all of
their very hard work was SIMPLE and EASY. Give me a break man!
[...]
Amine
The proof say so
and
The proof is logic and correct
and
It's the law to follow.
Reread my proof and my posts and you will understand what i mean very
well.
Regards,
Amine.
Amine
I wrote:
"The proof says so
and
The proof is logic and correct
and
It's the law to follow.
reread my proof and my posts
and
you will understand what i mean very well."
I mean if you want really the TRUTH,
you have to follow the law that i have proved.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Steve Watt
Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>David Schwartz wrote:
>> [...]
>> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
>
>I say that: *NOTHING* is complex or difficulT
>
>
>My prof:
Presumably you meant "proof".
You have indeed proven something. It probably wasn't what you intended
to prove, however.
I have a deep understanding of operating systems. Modern OSes have
lots of pieces to them. The pieces have non-trivial interactions.
Therefore they are complex, by the definition of the term:
complex:
1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement
of parts, units, etc.
(etc., from dictionary.reference.com)
So now on to "difficult":
difficult:
1. not easily or readily done; requiring much labor, skill, or
planning to be performed successfully; hard
(etc.)
Therefore, if you have to spend time and effort, and develop
substantial skills, it matches the definition of "difficult".
Would you argue that the Babbage difference engine is not complex?
It's only ~8000 moving parts, and since it's now been built (twice),
clearly it's not a big deal. Was it difficult? In retrospect, with
almost two centuries of technology development between now and when it
was designed (but not built), it's not very difficult, either.
But it only seems simple (the opposite of both complex and difficult,
amusingly) now, after the work has been done.
I will now return to prior state, which is mostly ignoring articles
you've written.
--
Steve Watt KD6GGD PP-ASEL-IA ICBM: 121W 56' 57.5" / 37N 20' 15.3"
Internet: steve @ Watt.COM Whois: SW32-ARIN
Free time? There's no such thing. It just comes in varying prices...
Chris M. Thomasson
On Aug 2, 7:09 am, "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> > "Amine" <ami...@colba.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:12f7aa88-2c5e-4f2e...@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > > If you reread my proof and you have understand the example
> > > of the universe that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
> >
> > > The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
> >
> > Go ahead and tell all the engineers who designed such systems that all
> > of
> > their very hard work was SIMPLE and EASY. Give me a break man!
> >
> > [...]
> The proof say so
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Amine
Hello,
Like in RELATIVITY
The judgment that we make on a THING: that it's COMPLEX or NOT
is relative to each intelligence and conscience.
Logic is mathematic
My proof is logic
and
It's a LAW to follow if you want to find the TRUTH.
Now, to help you see more clearer my proof:
Suppose we have understood COMPLETLY the GRAPH(states + transitions)
of the construction of all the UNIVERS , and we want to construct
this
thing, we will finally say that ALL this thing that we call the
UNIVERS is
*SIMPLE* and *EASY* cause we finally UNDERSTOOD COMPLETLY the
process:but perhaps it does take TIME to construct(to move, for
example,
from one point to the other: from one state to the other in the
GRAPH), but
the process wil be still SIMPLE and EASY even if we take more TIME:
we will say for example:
"The process is SIMPLE and EASY but it does take time".
And if we COMPLETLY understood the construction process of the univers
This will make the process SIMPLE and EASY and we will finally
JUDGE and say that the THING that we call UNIVERS is SIMPLE
and EASY: EVEN if it take TIME to construct.
Now we have the Reality:
Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain
And with the Univers ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judgement: like it is COMPLEX or NOT.
Right ?
So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.
Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the univers is COMPLEX.
Tell me now where is the TRUTH ?
And who is right and who is wrong?
It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is RIGH right,
it is you that have the TRUTH, the otherS NO:
this imply that the UNIVERS is SIMPLE."
Now if i ask someone a question like this:
"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing?"
and the answer is.
"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"
Is the answer right or wrong ?
Of course the answer is WRONG.
If you reread my proof and you have understood the example
of the univers, that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
The same is true for ALL the things inside the univers.
Hence my affirmation:
"NOTHING is complex or diffIcult"
is TRUE
and
My proof is correct.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Chris M. Thomasson:
> I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one
Hello,
Like in RELATIVITY
Logic is mathematic
My proof is logic
and
Now we have the Reality:
Reality= Brain(the conscience) + universe outside the brain
And with the Univers ALONE without conscience. you
can NOT make any judgement: like it is COMPLEX or NOT.
Right ?
So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the universe *SIMPLE* for you.
Now imagine that the others still DON'T understand all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, they will have a SUBJECTIVE view:
and they will say for example that the univers is COMPLEX.
Tell me now where is the TRUTH ?
And who is right and who is wrong?
It's YOU that is OBJECTIVE and who is RIGH right,
it is you that have the TRUTH, the others NO:
this imply that the UNIVERS is SIMPLE."
Now if i ask someone a question like this:
"Is the construction of the Azul system - with more than 700 cores -
a complex or a simple thing?"
and the answer is.
"The construction of the Azul system is a COMPLEX thing"
Is the answer right or wrong ?
Of course the answer is WRONG.
If you reread my proof and you have understood the example
of the univers, that i gave above, you will categoricaly affirm that:
The construction of an Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
The same is true for ALL the things inside the univers.
Hence my affirmation:
"NOTHING is complex or diffIcult"
is TRUE
and
My proof is correct.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
I wrote:
"So, when you finally COMPLETLY understood all
the GRAPH(states + transitions) of this thing
that we call univers, YOU will have the OBJECTIVE
view , and this will make the univers *SIMPLE* for you.
[...]"
But to not get 'tired' in the CONSTRUCTION phase,
don't forget to use for example something like: Robots.
Regards,
Amine.
Amine
Hello all,
If you have read carefully my proof , you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.
When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"
i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.
Now, if you have noticed , as soon as you take into account
the REALITY constraints , the proof will begin to have problems.
As an example: suppose that the THING is a construction process
that make you tired , this means this thing is difficult, so, my
affirmation "nothing is complex or difficult" will become false.
So , as you see, in my reasonning process about such properties
as complex or difficult i have forget to take into account the TWO
things:
the ABSTRACT(like Algorithm etc.) *AND* also the REALITY(like
hardware
etc.).
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello all,
If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.
When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"
i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.
Now from an abstract point of view, as soon as you understand
*COMPLETLY* an abstract representation (in the form of conscience),
you will have an OBJECTIVE view of it, and it will become the TRUTH
and as soon as you understand it COMPLETLY it will look SIMPLE
and EASY.
If a person don't undertand an abstract representation of a real
system
and he finally come to the conclusion that it is COMPLEX and
DIFFICULT
Is it the TRUTH that it is complex and difficult ?
Of course NO.
Cause this abstract representation of a real system is just
a SUBJECTIVE view.
So it's not the TRUTH..
And the TRUTH lies in the COMPLETE understanding side.
And as soon as you understand the abstract representation completly
it will become SIMPLE and EASY , and this is THE TRUTH.
And the same reasonning is valid for every abstract representation.
Hence, we can finally state that:
EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
David Schwartz
> But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
> UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
> as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
> universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
Are you retarded or something? If something has to happen for
something to become simple and easy, then it cannot already be simple
or easy. Thus it is "difficult".
That an apple may become rotten in the future does not mean that it is
not "really fresh" now or that this freshness is somehow false or
illusory. In fact, that an apple can become rotten in the future
through a process means that it is in fact fresh now.
This has been explained to you at least twice, and is well-understood
by most ten year olds.
DS
Amine
> On Aug 2, 1:11 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
> > UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
> > as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
> > universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
>
> Are you retarded or something? If something has to happen for
> something to become simple and easy, then it cannot already be simple
> or easy. Thus it is "difficult".
My dear David Schwartz , i am speaking about a subjective
view , an *ABSTRACT* representation of the univers(in ou conscience)
that will become SIMPLE and EASY, as soon as you have undertood
it completly.
Now please be quiet and reread my other post where i think i have
proved that::
"Every complet abstract representaton is SIMPLE and EASY"
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Chris M. Thomasson
to go through a DIFFICULT and COMPLEX process?
Amine
> Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one has
> to go through a DIFFICULT and COMPLEX process?
Hello my dear Chris M. Thomasson
The DIFFICULT and COMPLEX is just a SUBJECTIVE view ,
an ABSTRACT representation, and as soon as you COMPLETLY
understood the system, the ABSTRACT representation will become
OBJECTIVE and a complet abstract representation that is the TRUTH:
and it will finally *INFORM* us on the REALITY of the THING.
Please reread my other posts and you will understand that:
"Every complet abstract represetation is SIMPLE and EASY"
And this statement does also INFORM us on the REALITY
of the things(like the univers).
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello my dear Chris M. Thomasson
As an example:
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
The complet abstract representation of it (in you conscience) will
become
SIMPLE and EASY, right ?
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is the
derivative
and he come to the conclusion that the derivative is complex and
diffcult
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the derivative: is it COMPLEX or
SIMPLE?
It is YOU that have the OBJECTIVE view and the complet abstract
representation of the derivative inside your conscience, it's YOU
that
have the TRUTH about the derivative: that it's SIMPLE and EASY.
Do you understand.now ?
Now reread my posts and you will understand.
I think i have proved that:
"Every complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY"
Amine
Hello my dear Chris M. Thomasson
As another example:
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is spinlock
from inside out.
The complet abstract representation of it (in your conscience) will
become SIMPLE and EASY, right ?
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is it...
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the derivative: is it COMPLEX or
SIMPLE?
It is YOU that have the OBJECTIVE view and the complet abstract
representation of the spinlock inside your conscience, it's YOU
that
have the TRUTH about the spinlock: that it's SIMPLE and EASY.
Do you understand.now ?
And i think i have proved that
"Every complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY"
That's sufficient to state for example: that the univers is SIMPLE and
EASY
EVEN if you have not understood it.
Please reread my posts and you will understand.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello my dear Chris M. Thomasson
As another example:
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is spinlock
from inside out.
The complet abstract representation of it (in your conscience) will
become SIMPLE and EASY, right ?
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is it...
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the spinlock: is it COMPLEX or
Amine
Hello,
Please follow with me now...
Imagine now that an intelligent super powerfull machine has
understood the UNIVERS as a system from inside out.
So, the complet abstract representation of the UNIVERS (inside the
conscience of the intelligent super powerful machine) will become
SIMPLE and EASY for this intelligent super powerfull machine, right ?
Let suppose that humans still don't understand what is the univers
as a system and they still affirm that the univers is COMPLEX and
DIFFICULT.
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
The intelligent super powerful machine or the humans ?
We want to find the *TRUTH* about the univers as a system:
is it COMPLEX or SIMPLE?
Of course that it is the intelligent super powerfull machine
that have the OBJECTIVE view and the complet abstract representation
of the univers, it's the intelligent super powerful machine that
have
the *TRUTH* about the univers: that it's SIMPLE and EASY.
So , even if humans find the univers complex and dificult,
we can state - by asking the super powerful machine - that it's
in reality SIMPLE and EASY.
Do you understand.now ot not yet ?
And please reread my other posts and you will understand.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
David Schwartz
> The DIFFICULT and COMPLEX is just a SUBJECTIVE view ,
It is not "just a subjective view". It is also an accurate statement
of the fact that a difficult and complex process is needed to attain
the view that it is simple.
> an ABSTRACT representation, and as soon as you COMPLETLY
> understood the system, the ABSTRACT representation will become
> OBJECTIVE and a complet abstract representation that is the TRUTH:
> and it will finally *INFORM* us on the REALITY of the THING.
Right. And when we say something is "difficult", we mean that exactly
what you wrote above is needed. You conceded it was needed. Therefore
it is difficult.
You also completely misunderstand the nature of subjectivity. But if
you can't even understand what "difficult" means, there's no hope of
setting you straight on that. (Hint: Describing something as
"subjective" is actually an objective description of the relationship
between that thing and human consciousness.)
> Please reread my other posts and you will understand that:
At least Chris has demonstrated himself to be capable of
understanding. I have yet to see any evidence that you have understood
a single thing that has been said to you.
DS
Dmitriy V'jukov
> On Aug 3, 2:15 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 1:11 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > > But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
> > > UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
> > > as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
> > > universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
>
> > Are you retarded or something? If something has to happen for
> > something to become simple and easy, then it cannot already be simple
> > or easy. Thus it is "difficult".
>
> My dear David
Amine, aren't you Szabolcs Ferenczi? LROTF
Amine
Look my dear David Schwartz,
Since the powerful computer understand *COMPLETLY*
the system(like the univers) it's the OBJECTIVE view
The super powerful computer knows exactly the *ESSENCE*
of the system.
The humans don't understand it and have only a SUBJECTIVE view
and an INCOMPLETE abstract representation of what's the the univers
inside there conscience..
Hence, you will NOT find the truth in the NOT UNDERSTAND side (the
humans)
BUT in the *UNDERSTANDING* side.
So , you will say that the univers is in REALITY truly SIMPLE and
EASY.
So when you wrote:
> [...]
> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
This is NOT the TRUTH.
If another person UNDERSTOOD *COMPLETLY* from inside out
what's the spinlock, he knows exactly the *ESSENCE* of this
abstraction
that we call spinlock
So, who do you think knows what's EXACTLY a spinlock ?
It's NOT you my dear David Schwartz, but the person that
UNSERSTOOD *COMPLETLY* what's the *ESSENCE* of
this abstraction that we call spinlock.
Ask him and he will say to you that it is SIMPLE and EASY
AND that's the TRUTH .
EVEN if you don't understand wha'ts a spinlock
and say that's it's COMPLEX and DIFFICULT.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Look my dear David Schwartz,
Since the powerful computer understand *COMPLETLY*
the system(like the univers) it's the OBJECTIVE view
The super powerful computer knows exactly the *ESSENCE*
of the system.
The humans don't understand it and have only a SUBJECTIVE view
and an INCOMPLETE abstract representation of what's the the univers
inside there conscience..
Hence, you will NOT find the truth in the NOT UNDERSTAND side (the
humans)
BUT in the *UNDERSTANDING* side.
So , you will say that the univers is in REALITY truly SIMPLE and
EASY.
So when you wrote:
> [...]
> Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
Amine
> Look my dear David Schwartz,
>
> Since the powerful computer understand *COMPLETLY*
I mean the intelligent super powerful machine.
Amine
> Look my dear David Schwartz,
>
> Since the powerful computer understand *COMPLETLY*
I mean the intelligent super powerful machine.
Amine
As an example:
Before:
I didn't undestand *COMPLETLY* what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
it was just a SUBJECTIVE view that i had about the derivative
and i didn't have a complete representation of the derivative
inside my conscience and i was THINKING - it was just the first
IMPRESSIONS - that the derivative is COMPLEX and DIFFICULT.
But as soon as i have understood the derivative it has become
an OBJECTIVE view, and now i have a complete representation
of the derivative inside my conscience and i can say that i know
the real ESSENCE of the derivative.
So, if you ask me now a question like:
"Is the derivative COMLPEX or EASY ?"
Since i have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD and i know the *ESSENCE*
of the derivative i can affirm categoricaly that: ITS IS SIMPLE AND
EASY.
Hence as soon as i have UNDERSTOOD the derivative , the properties
like
COMLPEX and DIFFCULT have gone, and it has become SIMPLE and EASY.
So, the ESSENCE of the DERIVATIVE,
the TRUTH about it , is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
EVEN have not understood Iit COMPLETLY.
Did you understand or not yet ?
Regards
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Dave Butenhof
OK, that's the best one yet. Thanks for brightening my day. ;-)
(With apologies to Szabolcs, by the way, since even when he was
excessively annoying he was at least babbling about topics relevant to
this newsgroup. What we have here is a whole different breed of monster.
This gibberish might as well be randomly generated spam, and it just
won't stop.)
Amine
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
Since the intelligent super powerful machine understand COMPLETLY
the univers, the ESSENCE of the univers, it knows the *TRUTH*: that
the univers is SIMPLE and EASY.
And since you still don't UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY what's the univers
and you don't know its ESSENCE: this imply/prove that you are LIMITED
in your CAPACITY.
And this doesn't contractict what i have said.
The super intelligent machine KNOWS that the UNIVERS is in reality
SIMPLE and EASY: and it's the TRUTH.
*EVEN* if you don't understand it and still make FALSE affirmations:
like the univers is COMPLEX and DIFICCULT
Do you understand or not yet ?
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramadane
Dave Butenhof
> (nothing, but with many more words, over and over. And over and over.
> And over and over. And over and over.)
Are you a machine? One, say, substantially less "intelligent" and
"powerful" than the one you repeatedly suppose?
You appear to be posting the exact same verbal diarrhea repeatedly;
though admittedly the task of filtering through the goo looking for
specific details is sufficiently unpleasant that I don't really try.
Can you manage to simply explain WHY you are doing this, and WHY you
think it's relevant or interesting to anyone on this newsgroup? Once
you've worked out how to do it, I'm sure you'll find it's simple...
Amine
( note: It will be my last post, please read the following..)
On Aug 4, 12:53 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
> >sometimes has to go through a DIFFICULT and/or COMPLEX process?
You have all to be SMARTER than that my dear Chris M. Thomasson
If you have noticed, Chris M. Thomasson have wrote:
>Do you agree that in order for something
Notice the: 'something'
I think that i have proved that:
[1] "Every complet ABSTRACT repersentation is SIMPLE and EASY"
Do you notice the word: *ABSTRACT*
Now be smarter...
If you have noticed, the statement [1] above does inform us
on the REALITY and the ESSENCE of the THING
It means that the ABSTRACT world does effectively inform us
on the REALITY of the THINGS..
Now, as the examples that i gave before:
If you have UNDERTOOD COMPLETLY the derivative or the system that
we call univers, its ABSTRACT representation - that you have formed
inside
your conscience - will be the TRUTH and this complet abstract
represention
will inform us on the REAL thing: like for example the univers or the
derivative
are in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
'Conscience' of a thing is a set of ideas.
And since an idea belong to the ABSTRACT set (world)
=> the conscience IS an abstract thing
And based on my statement[1] we can also affirm that:
Since algorithms are abstract representations
and EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY
So , every Algorithm is SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
David Schwartz
> The humans don't understand it and have only a SUBJECTIVE view
> and an INCOMPLETE abstract representation of what's the the univers
> inside there conscience..
> Hence, you will NOT find the truth in the NOT UNDERSTAND side (the
> humans)
But that's where you're wrong. Humans in fact do have a subjective
view. That they have this view is an objective truth. So properties of
that view are objective truths as well.
> BUT in the *UNDERSTANDING* side.
>
> So , you will say that the univers is in REALITY truly SIMPLE and
> EASY.
Do humans in reality have a subjective view? Yes or no?
Again, you completely misunderstand the nature of subjectivity.
> So when you wrote:
> > [...]
> > Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
>
> This is NOT the TRUTH.
Yes, it is.
> If another person UNDERSTOOD *COMPLETLY* from inside out
> what's the spinlock, he knows exactly the *ESSENCE* of this
> abstraction
> that we call spinlock
> So, who do you think knows what's EXACTLY a spinlock ?
>
> It's NOT you my dear David Schwartz, but the person that
> UNSERSTOOD *COMPLETLY* what's the *ESSENCE* of
> this abstraction that we call spinlock.
>
> Ask him and he will say to you that it is SIMPLE and EASY
>
> AND that's the TRUTH .
No, he will not. He will say, "I had to go through a lot of effort to
come to this understanding of spinlocks. That such an effort is
necessary to achieve understanding is what it means to say spinlocks
are difficult. Thus spinlocks are difficult."
DS
David Schwartz
> (With apologies to Szabolcs, by the way, since even when he was
> excessively annoying he was at least babbling about topics relevant to
> this newsgroup. What we have here is a whole different breed of monster.
> This gibberish might as well be randomly generated spam, and it just
> won't stop.)
Yeah, that was pretty funny. There's another different too though,
Szabolics repeated misunderstandings had complex and apparently
reasonable arguments to defend them. He had an amusingly self-
consistent set of incorrect understandings and cleverly resisted any
attempt to pick them apart. He showed understanding of the arguments
against him and cleverly managed to avoid learning anything from them.
In contrast, Amine simply repeats the exact same "how do I know I
exist" pseudo-philosophical diarrhea over and over. He shows no signs
whatsoever of responding to the arguments against him, and he persists
in but a single misunderstanding -- an insistence that when everyone
else uses the word "difficult" they mean the bizarre and perverse
thing he means by it rather than the quite obvious and clear thing
they do in fact mean.
DS
Amine
>[...]
> No, he will not. He will say, "I had to go through a lot of effort to
> come to this understanding of spinlocks. That such an effort is
> necessary to achieve understanding is what it means to say spinlocks
> are difficult. Thus spinlocks are difficult."
YOU are WRONG.
Those past dicculties to UNDERSTAND were just SUBJECTIVE
IMPRESSIONS, they were NOT the TRUTH about the ESSENCE
of the spinlock..
And as soon as you UNDERSTOOD COMPLETLY the spinlock
from the inside out, you will have the OBJECTIVE view of it and you
will have the complet abstract representation of it inside you
conscience,:
and you will come to the conclusion that: in fact spinlocks ARE in
reality
SIMPLE and EASY. This final impression - not the past FALSE
impressions -
is the *TRUTH* about the ESSENCE of the spinlock.
Please reread my posts and you will understand.
Regards
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
> Amine wrote:
>
> ) Do you understand or not yet ?
>
> You don't seem to understand that words like 'simple', 'easy', 'complex'
> and 'difficult' are subjective measures.
I think you have not understood...
Properties like SIMPLE and EASY are just states of consciousness
(inside our brain).
As soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative - through
an OBJECTIVE analysis - you will have a COMPLET abstract
representation
of it in your consciousness , YOU WILL KNOW ITS *TRUTH* , and since
those
states of consciousness that we call SIMPLE and EASY are the result of
a
COMPLET UNDERSTANDING they are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
Please read again...
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
The complet abstract representation of it - in your consciousness -
will
become SIMPLE and EASY.
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is the
derivative and he come to the conclusion that the derivative is
complex and diffcult
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the derivative: is it COMPLEX or
SIMPLE?
Since you have understood it completly , it is YOU that have the
*TRUTH*
about the derivative: so you will say that it's SIMPLE and EASY and
this
is the TRUTH
Now another example:
Imagine that an intelligent super powerfull machine has
understood the UNIVERS as a system from inside out.
Let suppose that humans still don't understand what is the univers
as a system and they still affirm that the univers is COMPLEX and
DIFFICULT.
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
The intelligent super powerful machine or the humans ?
We want to find the *TRUTH* about the univers as a system:
is it COMPLEX or SIMPLE?
Of course that it is the intelligent super powerfull machine
that is telling the TRUTH.
Since the intelligent super powerfull machine have UNDERSTOOD
COMPLETLY the system that we call univers, it's the intelligent
super
powerfull machine that have the *TRUTH* about it: that means
that the univers if in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
On Aug 4, 8:32 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 12:57 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
>
> > Amine wrote:
>
> > ) Do you understand or not yet ?
>
> > You don't seem to understand that words like 'simple', 'easy', 'complex'
> > and 'difficult' are subjective measures.
>
> I think you have not understood...
>
> Properties like SIMPLE and EASY are just states of consciousness
> (inside our brain).
Sorry about my english. (I don't speak very well english, i am
just making a lot of efforts to explain my ideas), so please be quiet
and don't be racist.
But what i mean is when you say something is SIMPLE
SIMPLE and EASY are *IMPRESSIONS* that you have
So, as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative -
through an OBJECTIVE analysis - you will have a COMPLET abstract
representation of it in your consciousness , YOU WILL KNOW ITS
*TRUTH* ,
and since those impressions that we call SIMPLE and EASY are the
result of
a COMPLET UNDERSTANDING they are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
David Schwartz
> Sorry about my english. (I don't speak very well english, i am
> just making a lot of efforts to explain my ideas), so please be quiet
> and don't be racist.
You admit you don't understand the language, so ...
> So, as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative -
> through an OBJECTIVE analysis - you will have a COMPLET abstract
> representation of it in your consciousness , YOU WILL KNOW ITS
> *TRUTH* ,
> and since those impressions that we call SIMPLE and EASY are the
> result of
> a COMPLET UNDERSTANDING they are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
This is a perfect description of what English speakers mean when they
say something is "difficult". They mean precisely this -- that effort
is required to attain a complete understanding of it.
The term "difficult" very specifically means that effort is required
to achieve complete understanding. So how can you say that effort is
required to achieve complete understanding and yet it is not
difficult?
DS
Amine
You have NOT understood...
If efforts are required to understand the derivative
and you had impressions that the derivative is COMPLEX
and DIFFICULT
those - past - impressions are *FALSE* impressions
and since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
So , where will you find the TRUTH ?
Is it in the understand side ?
Or is it in the NOT understand side ?.
It's when you understand someone COMPLETLY
that you are able to affirm CATEGORICALY who the person is
right or wrong ? of course it's right.
It's when you understand completly a system
that you are able to say CATEGORICALY what is the system
right or wrong ? of course it's right.
[1] So, it is why i have said that you will find the TRUTH in the
COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING side.
Now when you UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY the process
of how to open a door, this process will become SIMPLE
and EASY, rigth or wrong ? of course it's right.
If an intelligent super powerful machine UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY
and it has a complet abstract representation - a complet
consciousness of it -
of a very complex system, the system will become SIMPLE and EASY
for the intelligent super powerful machine.
Now if you don't understand the very complex system and you say that
it is COMPLEX and DIFFICULT.
Who is rigth and who is wrong?
Reread [1]: it's the intelligent super powerful machine that is
right and
the system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
And that's the same for every system, as soon as you understand it
completly
and you have a complet abstract representation of it - a complet
consciousness of it-
I think you can even make some tests with a computer to verify that !
If the computer knows well(by programming) what is the derivative,
it will have an abstract representation of it - a consciousness -
the computer will be conscious of what is the derivative.
So as soon as you UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY the derivative
You will be able to *KNOW* what it is
and the derivative will become SIMPLE and EASY
and those final impressions - SIMPLE and EASY -
Are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
Regards,
Amine.
David Schwartz
> You have NOT understood...
No, you have not understood.
> If efforts are required to understand the derivative
> and you had impressions that the derivative is COMPLEX
> and DIFFICULT
> those - past - impressions are *FALSE* impressions
> and since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
Correct, but here's the part you're missing -- that's precisely what a
person means when he says something is difficult. He means that effort
is required to understand it.
> It's when you understand completly a system
> that you are able to say CATEGORICALY what is the system
> right or wrong ? of course it's right.
This is like arguing that nothing can ever be behind you. Because it
is when you look at something that you have a complete and correct
understanding of it, and then it's not behind you. As you have already
pointed out, "difficult" denotes a subjective relationship between
human understanding and the thing understood.
> [1] So, it is why i have said that you will find the TRUTH in the
> COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING side.
Suppose there is some place people have not explored. People will know
the truth of it when they explore it. Is it then erroneous to say that
place is unexplored? After all, once people explore it and know the
truth of it, it won't be unexplored.
Do you see how stupid you are being?
> Now when you UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY the process
> of how to open a door, this process will become SIMPLE
> and EASY, rigth or wrong ? of course it's right.
Yes, but if something has to happen for it to *become* *SIMPLE*, then
it cannot be simple now. Otherwise, it could not become simple.
DS
Amine
> On Aug 4, 10:25 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > You have NOT understood...
>
> No, you have not understood.
No, YOU have not understood.
>
> > If efforts are required to understand the derivative
> > and you had impressions that the derivative is COMPLEX
> > and DIFFICULT
> > those - past - impressions are *FALSE* impressions
> > and since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> > you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> > that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
>
> Correct, but here's the part you're missing -- that's precisely what a
> person means when he says something is difficult. He means that effort
> is required to understand it.
Since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
We are looking for the TRUTH about the derivative
NOT for FALSE impressions when you have not yet KNOW
completly the system.
And the TRUTH is in the complet understand side[1]:
it is when you will understand completly the derivative
that you will have the TRUTH about it. And those final
impressions - SIMPLE and EASY - are in fact the *TRUTH*
Chris M. Thomasson
news:be22ef83-d356-4d62...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Aug 4, 8:32 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 12:57 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > Amine wrote:
>>
>> > ) Do you understand or not yet ?
>>
>> > You don't seem to understand that words like 'simple', 'easy',
>> > 'complex'
>> > and 'difficult' are subjective measures.
>>
>> I think you have not understood...
>>
>> Properties like SIMPLE and EASY are just states of consciousness
>> (inside our brain).
>
>
> Sorry about my english. (I don't speak very well english, i am
> just making a lot of efforts to explain my ideas), so please be quiet
> and don't be racist.
Who's a racist?
David Schwartz
> Since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
But you know that's not true, since describing something as "complex"
or "difficult" means that a process just as the one you described is
required.
> We are looking for the TRUTH about the derivative
> NOT for FALSE impressions when you have not yet KNOW
> completly the system.
No, we are not. It's like if I said "the sun is yellow" and you said
"no it's green" and responded by saying "We're talking about grass".
No, we're talking about the sun.
When a person says something is difficult he is describing impressions
from when you do not know the system completely. Specifically, the
term "difficult" is a measure of the amount of effort required to know
the system completely.
How hard is that to understand?
It is not about the "inherent truth" of the thing itself. It is about
the process required by a person to understand it. Many statements are
like this. For example, if I say "sugar is sweet", is that really a
property of the sugar itself? Or is it a property of the way that
sugar interacts with my taste buds? If I say "the mountain is in front
of me", is that a property of the mountain itself or a property of the
relationship between my position and the mountains?
"Difficult" is a relationship property like that. It is like "gold is
valuable". You won't find the value in the gold molecules.
> And the TRUTH is in the complet understand side[1]:
> it is when you will understand completly the derivative
> that you will have the TRUTH about it. And those final
> impressions - SIMPLE and EASY - are in fact the *TRUTH*
> about the derivative.
Right, and that such a thing is necessary to see it as simple and easy
is what an English speaker actually means when he says something is
difficult. "Difficult" means "requiring significant mental effort to
be understood".
Now stop being a retard.
DS
Amine
> On Aug 4, 10:56 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > Since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> > you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> > that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
>
> But you know that's not true, since describing something as "complex"
> or "difficult" means that a process just as the one you described is
> required.
>Now stop being a retard.
Reread what i have wrote:
"since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT"
I also said: *FALSLY*
It means that the derivative was before COMPLEX and DIFFICULT (for
you)
*and* that was *FALSE*
you thought *FALSLY* that it was the TRUTH.
And as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative
it has become SIMPLE and EASY.
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND and KNOW the system
that you are CERTAIN about its properties !
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the DOOR as a system
that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the derivative
that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
How hard is that to understand David Schwartz ?
Now stop being a retard !
Amine.
Amine
David Schwartz wrote:
> > Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
And this affirmation is FALSE.
That's NOT The *TRUTH*.
If you ask me a question like
"Why abstract philosophy and logic ?
I will answer that:
The purpose of abstract philosophy and logic is:
to help us find the TRUTH.
So i repreat:
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) !
When you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND spinlocks
You will finally be CERTAIN about there properties
You will finally have the *TRUTH* about them
that the spinlocks are is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
David Schwartz
> "since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT"
> I also said: *FALSLY*
Right, and that one has such a false impression is what it means to
call something "difficult".
> It means that the derivative was before COMPLEX and DIFFICULT (for
> you)
> *and* that was *FALSE*
> you thought *FALSLY* that it was the TRUTH.
Right, and that's what we mean when we call something "difficult". We
mean that it takes effort to understand it.
> And as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative
> it has become SIMPLE and EASY.
Right, but if it has to become simple and easy, then before it becomes
simple and easy, it's difficult. "Difficult" is a relationship
property, it can change even if the thing related doesn't change. For
example, a mountain can be "in front of me" and later become "behind
me" even though the mountain does not change. That is because "in
front of me" is a relationship property. The same is true of
difficulty.
> It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND and KNOW the system
> that you are CERTAIN about its properties !
Right. And if that takes effort, then English speakers call the thing
"difficult".
> It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the DOOR as a system
> that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
> that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
> that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
> and that's TRUE.
Right, and then at that time it is simple and easy whereas before it
was complex and difficult.
> It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the derivative
> that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
> that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
> that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
> and that's TRUE.
I agree. And if that takes effort, we call it "difficult".
> How hard is that to understand David Schwartz ?
>
> Now stop being a retard !
I am not the one spewing "how do I know I exist" mental diarrhea. You
are.
DS
David Schwartz
> When you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND spinlocks
> You will finally be CERTAIN about there properties
> You will finally have the *TRUTH* about them
> that the spinlocks are is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
> and that's TRUE.
Right, and English speakers have a word for things that take effort to
become simple and easy -- that word is "difficult".
DS
Amine
I said:
"It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) ! "
You are NOT SO SMART to understand what i mean David Schwartz.
.
The intelligent super powerful machine will someday confirm
to you that you are a STUPID FOOLISH DONKEY , and it will
confirm that spinlocks and the Azul system etc. are in fact
*SIMPLE* and *EASY* systems: and that is the TRUTH.
Think about it !
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Chris M. Thomasson
news:X8Mdm.28433$8B7....@newsfe20.iad...
> Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
Or should I say:
Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
__sometimes__ has
to go through a DIFFICULT and COMPLEX process?
Sometimes, people just get it; learning process might be reduced to almost
nothing.
;^)
Chris M. Thomasson
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:X8Mdm.28433$8B7....@newsfe20.iad...
>> Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
>> has to go through a DIFFICULT and COMPLEX process?
>
> Or should I say:
Just to keep within the spirit of this thread:
> Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
> __sometimes__ has
> to go through a DIFFICULT and COMPLEX process?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One should exchange the `and' between DIFFICULT and COMPLEX with `and/or'.
Weee!
Chris M. Thomasson
news:h59jtv$u04$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Dmitriy V'jukov wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 5:12 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 2:15 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 2, 1:11 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>>>>> But this affirmation is still SUBJECTIVE: it needs more
>>>>> UNDERSTANDING to become the TRUTH. And as soon
>>>>> as it become the TRUTH , this thing that we call the
>>>>> universe will be become *SIMPLE* and *EASY*.
>>>> Are you retarded or something? If something has to happen for
>>>> something to become simple and easy, then it cannot already be simple
>>>> or easy. Thus it is "difficult".
>>> My dear David
>>
>>
>> Amine, aren't you Szabolcs Ferenczi? LROTF
>
> OK, that's the best one yet. Thanks for brightening my day. ;-)
>
> (With apologies to Szabolcs, by the way, since even when he was
> excessively annoying he was at least babbling about topics relevant to
> this newsgroup.
I can actually get along with Szabolcs. Case in point, I created the simple
`active<T>' construct which allows for a rather simple binding between
objects and threads through a standard interface; this pleased him. Also, I
hacked the `when' keyword via. pre-processor into C++; Szabolcs was
satisfied, and even stated that the solution was better than he expected.
All's I did was become friendly and explicitly humble toward his ideals wrt
concurrent programming. I read what he wrote and contorted some example
implementations in C++ that seemed to fit his needs/requirements. I have had
several rather heated "discussions" with Szabolcs, loaded with
"insults/sarcasm" of course. However, I think I know how to rise "above"
that non-sense and attempt to communicate by explicitly relating to one of
my opponents "passions".
> What we have here is a whole different breed of monster. This gibberish
> might as well be randomly generated spam, and it just won't stop.)
Amine did post an algorithm for single-producer/multi-consumer queue. IMHO,
it's a useful construct. However, Amine needs to understand/realize the
power of eventcounts which can add conditional blocking on full/empty
conditions. IIRC, he is using busy-waiting in his thread-pool
implementation.