More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more..

[Amine Moulay Ramdane]

Hello...


More of my philosophy of what is mathematics and more..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think mathematics describes reality or theory with a great precision, this is also why we can "abstract" and/or "model" and/or "simulate" reality or theory with mathematics, also i think that mathematics can be independent of reality when we are working in mathematical theory, but the mathematical theory that is independent of reality can then be applied to reality, also i think that mathematics permits to optimize and verify, and we can also know about it by for example asking a philosophical question of: What is mathematical logic? , so i think mathematical logic maps logical expressions to logical variables and to logical operators and from that it permits to logically model with those logical variables and the logical operators and it permits to solve and verify the logical model, i will give an example so that you understand:

Take as an example in mathematical logic the following kind of logical proofs:

(p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))

Note: the symbol -> means implies and p and q are logical
variables.

or

(not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p


So we can ask the philosophical question of why are we using those kind
of logical proofs in mathematical logic ?

I think that it is because mathematical logic wants to get the meaning of is a system logically correct, so if it is not logically correct,
so that can mean that it has no meaning in the reality, and i think that this meaning in a reality permits to make the system understood as a whole(read my below writing about consistency to notice it), and it is the same for a mathematical theoretical system, and i think that those kind of proofs also permit to optimize since a kind logical proof can also be more practical than another in reality or theory.

So now can we ask a philosophical question of: Is software engineers really engineers? since it is related to mathematical logic, so here
is my answer:

I have just read the following article about: Is software engineers really engineers ?, i invite you to read it:

Are we really engineers ?

https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/crossover-project/are-we-really-engineers/


I think the above article is lacking, because i think that what makes
the difference between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is not only that software engineering uses discrete
math, but it uses Logic(Formal Logic and such) that has been called "the calculus of computer science". The argument is that logic plays a fundamental role in computer science, similar to that played by calculus in the physical sciences and traditional engineering disciplines. Indeed, logic plays an important role in areas of Computer Science as disparate as artificial intelligence (automated reasoning), architecture (logic gates), software engineering (specification and verification), programming languages (semantics, logic programming), databases (relational algebra and SQL), algorithms (complexity and expressiveness), and theory of computation (general notions of computability).


More of my philosophy about logical consistency and consistency..


So i will do more philosophy in front of your eyes, and i am thinking and writing "rapidly" all my philosophy(including my philosophy in my below writing), so as you are noticing that thinking and writing as i am
doing it needs "precision" and it needs smartness, so i will make you
understand more what i mean by my answer below of the question: What is a consistent system?, so notice that in mathematical logic, when there is a logical contradiction, it means that the system is not logically consistent and that means that the system is not consistent, but you have to make an important difference, it is that in mathematical
logic there is a more sophisticated meaning and a less sophisticated meaning, so for example look at the following theorem:


If (A implies B)
And
If (B implies C)
Then (A implies C)

So as you are noticing that the whole theorem has a more sophisticated meaning than its parts, and now suppose that there is a logical contradiction in the theorem, you will notice that it will give a "bug"
to the whole meaning of the theorem, so the theorem will become a low level sophistication of meaning that comes from a logical inconsistency
that is a logical contradiction, so can we ask a philosophical question of: is this logical contradiction that causes an inconsistency in the system causes that the meaning of the system becomes not understandable? i will answer yes, because there is like two modes to measure consistency of a system, there is the logical mode to measure consistency of a system, and there are other modes with wich we measure consistency a system, so if we measure consistency of the system or theorem with the logical mode, we say that the contradiction is not logical, and that means that the understandable is both the understandable of the logical mode and the understandable of the other modes, so when there is a logical contradiction in the system or in the theorem, we say that in the understandable of logical mode the contradiction is not logical and that also means that there is a missing part in the logical meaning that gives a meaning that permits the system
or the theorem to be of value or sophisticated meaning,
and this missing meaning of the logical contradiction is the not understandable of the logical mode that is also the not understandable,
since when there is contradiction the whole system or theorem fall down and fail and in logic it is like a null set, and this fall down and failing in the meaning is like the null set of meaning , and this
null set of meaning is also what we call the theorem or the system is
not understood as a whole, so i think my logical proof is successful and
it is true for the cases of the system that follows an infinite set of rules etc. (read about them below)

Read the rest of my previous thoughts to understand:

More of my philosophy about what is consistency of a system..


Now i will talk about what is consistency of a system..

Notice how i have just logically proved(read below) that a system is not always consistent, but there remain a very important question in philosophy and it is: What is a consistent system? i think i am smart, and i say that a consistent system is the one that can be understood as a whole as one system with smartness, so if there is logical inconsistency in the system, so this logical inconsistency will make it as not like one system that can be understood as one system, also if the set of rules that follows the system are infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so the system can not be understood as one system, so it is inconsistent, and if it is a chaotic system, so the chaotic system can follow finite rules and it can be understood as a whole, so it becomes consistent, or it can follows infinite rules, so it becomes inconsistent.

More of my philosophy about a system and consistency..


So i will ask the following philosophical question:

Is in philosophy a system always consistent ?

Here is my answer:

So read the following definition in the dictionary of "system":

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system

So as you notice that the dictionary says the following:

"A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules."

And look at the definition of plan in the dictionary:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plan

So as you notice that it says:

"A plan is a method of achieving something that you have worked out in detail beforehand"

So we can logically infer that a system follows a fixed plan or set of rules, and we know that "consistent" means acting or done in the same way over time, and the "same way" over time is "finite" over time, so then since a system follows a set of rules, the "set" of those rules can be infinite, since a set can be finite or infinite, so then we can logically say that since a system also follows an infinite set of rules , so that means that a system has as nature or essence that it is both an unchanging nature that follows a fixed plan and an inconsistency, so i think we can logically infer that a system is not always consistent.

I think that fluid intelligence discerns patterns(and discern is to recognize, it also means to know), and a pattern is a system that is static or dynamic that can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, and i think that when i say in the definition that the pattern follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way, it can also abstract all the functionality of fluid intelligence, read my following thoughts to understand:

More philosophy about fluid intelligence and a pattern..

Here is the definition in the dictionary of pattern:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pattern

And here is the definition in the dictionary of system:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system


So as you are noticing that the definition of "pattern" is:

"A particular way in which something is done, is organized, or happens"

And the definition of "system" is:

"A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules."


So as you are noticing that a pattern also means a system, and the pattern or system can be considered coherent(that means consistent or logical), because it follows a fixed plan or set of rules or a way. So in a Mensa IQ test you have to discern the coherent pattern or complex pattern with your fluid intelligence.

More philosophy about what is a pattern and more..

I think i am a philosopher, so i will ask a question of
what is a pattern?

I think a pattern is system that can be dynamic or static, i give
you an example so that you understand:

If i say the following sentence:

My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane and i am a genius.

There is high level patterns and lower level patterns in this sentence,
i think the word "My" and the other words are lower level patterns or systems in the sentence and the composition of the sentence from words is a higher level pattern or system that is composed from lower level patterns of words. This is how works fluid intelligence of smartness, it finds higher level patterns and lower level patterns of our universe constituted with low level patterns called matter or energy.


More of my philosophy about happiness..


When you read my below writing you will notice that
i am saying that happiness comes from pleasures of life and
from like the mechanism of the alternance of the day and night
and i am explaining the mechanism so that you understand it.

But the question is:

Am i really smart to say the above? since as you are noticing
that i am saying that "happiness comes from", but i am not
saying that "happiness also comes from", so as you are noticing
it is like i am saying "happiness only comes from", so is it illogical
to say so ?

No, it is logical to say so , since i am also saying below in my political philosophy(when i am speaking about the Japanese lifestyle) that order can be considered a pleasure of life, so then it is logical
to say in my above writing that "happiness only comes from", since
notice in the above context that order is a "constraint" ,
so then we have to know how to define order, so then you can
read my below philosophy and notice that order is constrained by
morality that i am showing that it must be progressive, read my following thoughts of my philosophy so that you notice:

More of my philosophy about what is the Nature of Personal Identity..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I invite you to look at the following short video:

Raymond Kurzweil - What is the Nature of Personal Identity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb3zsuHwqvY&t=193s

I think that Raymond Kurzweil in the above video is not answering correctly.

So i think that it is a philosophical question of:

What is the Nature of Personal Identity?

So i think i am smart and i will answer it like the following:

I think that you have to understand my philosophy about morality,
here it is:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4

So as you are noticing that in my philosophy about morality i am proving that morality is perfection at best , and the "at best" is here in the definition of morality to make it a correct abstraction, and note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting"

Read here:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection


So as you are noticing since morality is also perfection, so our
identity or personal identity is also this perfection, since we can say that we are a civilization and this civilization is a dynamic process and it is the act or process of perfecting at best, so then you have to know how to be correct science and correct technology that brings perfection.

And to be able to know more about my philosophy about existence,
I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy about human existence, you can read it carefully here:

https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence



About philosophy and Metaphilosophy..


I think i am smart, and i am doing philosophy, but you have to understand my way of doing philosophy, my way of doing
philosophy is not what we call doing Brainstorming first and so forth,
but i am most of the time like first finding the smart architectural ideas with my fluid intelligence, and it needs more smartness, so from those smart architectural ideas i am constructing more and more my philosophy, and you have to understand my philosophical smartness, since a very important thing for me, is also finding the soft power engines that permit people to efficiently go forward towards more and more perfection and that permit people to be smart, for example when you are genetically a person that greatly wants to show people that he is smart even if he is not smart, this genetically wanting greatly to show people that you are smart even if you are not smart is what we call an "engine" that permits to go forward towards more and more perfection, so in philosophy one of the most important thing is to find the mechanisms that play the role of "engines" that permit people to go efficiently forward towards more and more perfection and that permit people to become efficiently smart, this is one of the most important thing in philosophy, but not only that, but the goal of philosophy is happiness, but notice that it is the "goal", so the question in philosophy is how to efficiently attain the goal that is happiness, so an important question in philosophy is how to know how to be happiness, because if you say that happiness is only being pleasures of life, that's not the correct philosophy, so this is why i have to be inventive, and this is why you have seen me explaining what is happiness in my philosophy below, read it carefully and you will notice that i am answering this question by giving an answer in a form of a mechanism that plays the role of an "engine" that permits people to go efficiently forward toward more and more perfection and that permit people to be a smart, so as you
are noticing that i have to be smart when i am inventing my thoughts of
my philosophy.


Here is my philosophy about happiness and notice how i am like creating the engine that permits to go efficiently forward towards more and more perfection:

Is human life sad ?


I think i am a philosopher and i will answer this question:

When you are smart you will know that morality needs the right "balance", like a balance between competition and collaboration, or like a balance between individualism and collectivism, so human life is the same, it needs requirements so that to be pleasure of life, for example human life needs the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty and that brings pleasure, so i think human life has this kind of alternances that brings happiness and pleasures as an essence, for example when this Coronavirus crisis will be over, we will have learned how to appreciate much more our kind of civilization or pleasures of life, so the sadness of Coronavirus crisis will soon bring happiness and pleasures of life when Coronavirus crisis will be over, so as you are noticing it is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty and pleasure.

Now do we have to measure it absolutely or relatively ?

This is an important question in philosophy:

So how do we have to measure happiness ? and is happiness real ?

So i think that the philosopher Albert Camus was not smart when he said that human existence is absurd, by saying the following:

"Absurdism arises out of the tension between our desire for order, meaning and happiness and, on the other hand, the indifferent natural universe’s refusal to provide that."

So what is the right way to measure it ?

I think it is like science, since we are not yet perfect, so i think it is "hypothetical" to say that life is absurd like was saying the philosopher Albert Camus, because we have to to be pragmatic in science and measure it taking into account our "imperfections" and "limitations", so the are we happy must be measured in a pragmatic way, so then you can notice that my philosophy is more pragmatic, since it is explaining that happiness comes not only from pleasures of life, but it also comes from the alternance of being "hungry" for taking a rest and taking a rest or from the alternance of being hungry and eating a delicious meal, so happiness comes from the difficulties of life that make us more hungry for(and this gives a much greater intensity to pleasures of life, and this makes you much more happy) or make us appreciate much more the pleasures of life, so they make us more happy, and i think this is the secret of life, so then life is not absurd, since the meaning of life is that we are getting happiness from this kind of mechanism that looks like the alternance of the day and night from where comes beauty and a kind of pleasure, so then we have to be careful by being selective of the kind of pleasures of life that make us happy so that for example to not be too much materialism that causes problems.


From where comes happiness and pleasures of life?


It is like beauty of the alternance of the day and night, from this alternance of the day and night comes beauty and a kind of pleasure, so i think that happiness comes from this kind of alternance, i mean that for example you will get a great pleasure from eating a Moroccan Couscous Bidaoui(read about it below) when you are hungry, so from this alternance of being hungry and eating a Moroccan Couscous comes this great pleasure of life that gives happiness and that gives the meaning of life, so you have to know how to be this alternance , i mean when for example you work hard and after that you give yourself peace by taking a rest and you also give yourself a pleasure like eating a Moroccan Couscous Bidaoui, you will get a great pleasure, so you have to know how to be this alternance of being hard work and giving yourself peace by taking a rest, this is from where comes happiness and this is from where comes the meaning of human existence.

More philosophy about do we have to measure it relatively or absolutely..


When you measure an IQ , you can measure it relatively to the distribution of other IQs, but is it the right measure? so this question is really important, since the philosopher Albert Camus was measuring the meaning and purpose of life by measuring it like absolutely by saying that human existence is absurd by saying:


"Absurdism arises out of the tension between our desire for order, meaning and happiness and, on the other hand, the indifferent natural universe’s refusal to provide that."


But i think this is a mistake, since in my philosophy i am measuring the meaning of human existence "relatively" to pleasures of life that are like "powerful" drugs that bring us more happiness and so they give meaning to human existence(since they are like powerful drugs) and they permit us to go forward towards more and more perfection and this going forward towards more and more perfection is also the goal of morality(read below my political philosophy about morality so that to understand it), so i think i am right by saying so, so then human existence is not absurd.

More philosophy about the secret of life..

I think i am a wise man, and i think that life has like a secret,
and it is that it needs darkness and lightness but this
both darkness and lightness is happiness, since darkness of life
also become an insight that helps us, and also darkness of life
is as a level of suffering that allows us to appreciate simple pleasures of life or pleasures of life, and this mechanism of life that is a level of suffering that allows us to appreciate simple pleasures of life also allows us to be happy, so when you are a wise man you will notice that life is like a mechanism that is smart, since life is like Swarm intelligence that brings the best. So we have to be optimistic.


More of my philosophy about fluid intelligence and about consciousness..

More of my philosophy about is also our brain like a deep learning network that not only finds or see the pattern but it also gives the meaning of the pattern that is a dynamic or static system? i think that consciousness is the Value-added of processing with meanings that comes from like the feeling of our senses like the senses of touch etc. and it gives life and it permits to give happiness since our senses permit to feel pleasures of life, and this happiness permit to give meaning to human existence, so in my next posts i will explain much more deeply what is consciousness and what is fluid intelligence.

This is why i just said the following:

I think i am smart, and i think what gives what we call life to human
has as an essence in what we call feelings, and i think that self-awareness is like a sense of touch or feeling of our own thoughts, and self-awareness is like we are constantly like feeling
or touching our own thoughts, and i think this feeling is biologic, and i think that human consciousness is like the acts of feeling or touching, and it comes from our senses that are biologic, so we are
feeling pleasures of life, and this gives happiness and meaning to human
existence.

More of my philosophy about the “divide and rule” approach and being genetically smart like a genius..

And from my previous thoughts(read them below), i think that being genetically smart like a genius comes with like a deep learning network that is powerful that permit to recognize complex patterns that are systems that are static or dynamic, so we can logically infer that the being genetically smart like a genius has also a mode of like hardwired powerful deep learning network in the brain that doesn't use the “divide and rule” approach and that permit to like find instantaneously the complex pattern with fluid intelligence without making any effort. Read my previous thoughts to understand:

More of my philosophy about what is to be genetically smart like a genius..

I am a white arab, and i think i am genetically smart like a genius, and i will explain what is it to be smart like a genius:

When you are solving a Mensa IQ test, there is different levels of problems in the Mensa IQ test going from less complex to more complex,
so, you will notice that so that to solve the complex Mensa IQ problem with your fluid intelligence, you will have to find the pattern that is the system(static or dynamic) with your fluid intelligence, so now so that to understand what is it to be genetically smart like a genius, you have to understand what is a complex problem in Mensa IQ test, so a complex problem in Mensa IQ test is like a complex pattern that is a complex system that you have to find with your fluid intelligence, so next question is why you notice that even if we give much much more time to a normal IQ he will not be able to solve the complex Mensa IQ problem ? so i am smart like a genius and i will answer by saying the following:

The fact of even if we give much much more time to a normal IQ he will not be able to solve the complex Mensa IQ problem, this like proves that genetical fluid intelligence is like constituted with hardwired(in the brain from natural evolution of brains of humans) of like more or less powerful deep learning networks that recognize a more or less complex pattern, so this is why being smart like a genius permit you to see complex patterns that solves the complex Mesa IQ problems that are systems that the others less genetically smart can not see even if we give them much much more time to solve the complex Mensa IQ problems. So then the next question is:

More of my philosophy about how to prove the fuzziness of smartness..

As you have just noticed i have just said the following about
what is a genius and what is smartness:

---

I have just read the following very interesting article
from Livescience, i invite you to read it carefully:

Genius: Can anybody be one?

https://www.livescience.com/55028-what-makes-a-genius.html


So i am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius, and i will
explain what is a genius and what is smartness:

First you have to make a difference between IQ tests and smartness,
but i think that the standard IQ tests are not testing correctly IQ, since i think there is a "probabilistic" process in the way we solve IQ tests, i mean that you can be able to see clearly the pattern with your fluid intelligence or you can be able to see the pattern in a fuzzy way or probabilistic way with your fluid intelligence and still be able to recognize it or not be able to recognize it, that means that even if you have an IQ of 160 you can still not see a complex pattern even if an IQ of 110 can see the same complex pattern in a fuzzy way or probabilistic way and be able to recognize it, so i think it is like deep learning networks.

--


But i have to like prove this the fuzziness of smartness:


To be able to prove it, i will start to prove it like the following:

Notice that being artistic is also smartness, because i think that
being artistic is being able to recognize with your brain a pattern(of music and such), and after that from the pattern recognized being able to for example play the recognized pattern with a guitar, but notice again that recognizing the pattern is also a smartness that is fuzzy, since you notice that the patterns of music that are recognized by the brain of an artist can become fuzziness since the music that is discovered can be less perfect in a fuzzy way than other music that is discovered, so this proves that being artistic is also like deep learning networks in action in the brain of the artist, so being artistic is being smartness, but this smartness is smartness of being artistic. So then i think that the other patterns in for example logical reasoning etc. of what we call smartness are also fuzzy.

And i think that what we call mathematical intuition is also being
able to recognize with fluid intelligence a full pattern from a fuzzy pattern, so mathematical intuition is smartness that is also fuzzy.


More philosophy about what is a pattern and more..

I think i am a philosopher, so i will ask a question of
what is a pattern?

I think a pattern is system that can be dynamic or static, i give
you an example so that you understand:

If i say the following sentence:

My name is Amine Moulay Ramdane and i am a genius.

There is high level patterns and lower level patterns in this sentence,
i think the word "My" and the other words are lower level patterns or systems in the sentence and the composition of the sentence from words is a higher level pattern or system that is composed from lower level patterns of words. This is how works fluid intelligence of smartness, it finds higher level patterns and lower level patterns of our universe constituted with low level patterns called matter or energy.

More philosophy about technicality and science and philosophy..

What is the difference between being technicality(i mean the state of being technical methods and terms) or science and being philosophy?

It is like a Mensa IQ test, so you have to find the important pattern with your fluid intelligence, so i will find "rapidly" the important pattern with my fluid intelligence, here it is:

First you can be like an idiot and say that the important pattern is
that technicality(i mean the state of being technical methods and terms) is like science and philosophy is not like science.

But i think it is an answer that is idiotic and it is not the important pattern..

Here is the important pattern that i have just found rapidly with
my fluid intelligence:

I think that philosophy also finds patterns with fluid intelligence, and patterns can be a "system" that is dynamic or static that can be more sophisticated that you find with your fluid intelligence, and the patterns can be decomposed with fluid intelligence from a high level abstraction into patterns of low level abstraction, science and technicality(i mean the state of being technical methods and terms) use the same process of finding those high level pattern patterns and low level patterns, but the difference is in the tools, i think that technicality and science uses also more sophisticated tools than philosophy to find the patterns.

More of my philosophy about the way of high level abstraction and more..

I think i am a philosopher, and when i look with my fluid intelligence
to the concept of abstraction, i can find patterns, here is the patterns
that i am finding with my fluid intelligence:

Abstraction also reduces "complexity", and it is good, and i think that we are abstracting since we have to specialize because of the high complexity and high difficulty that create problems , so i think that we have to know how to efficiently abstract so that to efficiently learn by the way of high level abstraction, so i think that one of the best way to learning is also by the way of a top-down methodology from an efficient high level of abstraction to down to getting more and more into the details, and here we notice that it also needs to be done by the “divide and rule” approach to management, which also leads to hierarchical division of large organisations, or wich also leads to the Division of "labour", you can read more about the Division of labour here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour


So this Division of labour is the way of specialization..

But we can ask a very important philosophical question:

What is programming?

Here is my answer:

I think programming needs a language that is a high level abstraction too, and this high level abstraction of the language not only reduces complexity but there is some programming languages that are Turing-complete, and you have to know that a Turing-complete system can be proven "mathematically" to be capable of performing any possible calculation or computer program, and this is a really important thing
in programming, this is what permits programming to be powerful,
there is also another language that we call Petri nets with tools that permit to know if a parallel program is deadlock-free, if the Petri nets tool find that a Petri net is live, that means that it is deadlock-free, also there is more powerful Petri nets that we call Timed Petri nets that are Turing-complete and i am working with them.

And there is another philosophical question:

Does the “divide and rule” approach to management or to learning always work ?

I think it doesn't always work, and you have to read the following
very interesting article to notice it:

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2020/05/22/on-composability/


More philosophy about smartness and abstraction and complexity..

So i will start by asking a question:

Is the way of learning by high level abstraction an efficient way ?


So when you are smart you will quickly notice that we have to take into account the "context" of the way of learning by abstraction, and when you are smart you will notice that the way of learning by abstraction is also to reduce complexity, but when you take into account the context you will notice that learning by high level abstraction is a also a "specialization" and it is also an efficient way of learning when we measure it inside the "context" of abstraction that is the reality, so then we have not to be pessimistic about learning by the efficient way of high level abstraction since, first, it reduces the complexity and, second, even if we are not understanding the complexity behind the abstraction, learning by high level abstraction is also an efficient specialization that is efficient for adaptability, so we have to know how to balance between those that are required to understand the complexity behind the high level abstraction and those that are required to learn by the way of abstraction that is a specialization.

More philosophy about the way of learning by high level abstraction..

I will give you an example so that you understand, so if you ask what is the way of learning by abstraction, look at my following tutorial where i am presenting my methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization primitives of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by high level abstraction:


How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel-applications-with-petri-nets

How to manage efficiently complexity ?


I think you can manage complexity by the “divide and rule” approach
to management, which also leads to hierarchical division of large organisations, or wich also leads to the Division of "labour", you can read more about the Division of labour here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour


Also you can manage complexity by using constraints, such as laws, road rules and commercial standards, all of which limit the potential for harmful interactions to occur, also you can manage complexity by using higher layers of abstraction such as in computer programming, and we can also follow the efficient rule of: "Do less and do it better" that can also use higher level layers of abstraction to enhance productivity and quality, this rule is good for productivity and quality, and about productivity: I have also just posted about the following thoughts from the following PhD computer scientist:


https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/


Read more here his thoughts about productivity:


https://lemire.me/blog/2012/10/15/you-cannot-scale-creativity/


And i think he is making a mistake:


Since we have that Productivity = Output/Input


But better human training and/or better tools and/or better human smartness and/or better human capacity can make the Parallel productivity part much bigger that the Serial productivity part, so it can scale much more (it is like Gustafson's Law).


And it looks like the following:


About parallelism and about Gustafson’s Law..


Gustafson’s Law:


• If you increase the amount of work done by each parallel
task then the serial component will not dominate
• Increase the problem size to maintain scaling
• Can do this by adding extra complexity or increasing the overall
problem size


Scaling is important, as the more a code scales the larger a machine it
can take advantage of:


• can consider weak and strong scaling
• in practice, overheads limit the scalability of real parallel programs
• Amdahl’s law models these in terms of serial and parallel fractions
• larger problems generally scale better: Gustafson’s law


Load balance is also a crucial factor.


More of my philosophy about order and happiness..

(So read my following thoughts carefully, i have just updated them)

There is a mechanism that says that order is also a pleasure of life that brings happiness, so it gives meaning to human existence, so we are noticing that so that to be order we have to be the right perfection
that brings order, but there is also another mechanism and it is
that when you start to be disorder in a society, it makes you notice that disorder in a society is not good, so it makes you know that order in a society is so important and it makes you appreciate order in a society much more, it is what is happening to USA today, there was disorder in USA some days ago of groups of people that wanted to hurt and destroy Democracy, but USA is now appreciating much more order and Democracy, so USA is punishing the groups of people that wanted to bring disorder by hurting and destroying Democracy, also I will ask a smart philosophical question:


Is human life sad ?


I think i am a philosopher and i will answer this question:

When you are smart you will know that morality needs the right "balance", like a balance between competition and collaboration, or like a balance between individualism and collectivism, so human life is the same, it needs requirements so that to be pleasure of life, for example human life needs the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty and that brings pleasure, so i think human life has this kind of alternances that brings happiness and pleasures as an essence, for example when this Coronavirus crisis will be over, we will have learned how to appreciate much more our kind of civilization or pleasures of life, so the sadness of Coronavirus crisis will soon bring happiness and pleasures of life when Coronavirus crisis will be over, so as you are noticing it is like the alternance of the day and night that brings beauty and pleasure.

Now do we have to measure it absolutely or relatively ?

This is an important question in philosophy:

So how do we have to measure happiness ? and is happiness real ?

So i think that the philosopher Albert Camus was not smart when he said that human existence is absurd, by saying the following:

"Absurdism arises out of the tension between our desire for order, meaning and happiness and, on the other hand, the indifferent natural universe’s refusal to provide that."

So what is the right way to measure it ?

I think it is like science, since we are not yet perfect, so i think it is "hypothetical" to say that life is absurd like was saying the philosopher Albert Camus, because we have to to be pragmatic in science and measure it taking into account our "imperfections" and "limitations", so the are we happy must be measured in a pragmatic way, so then you can notice that my philosophy is more pragmatic, since it is explaining that happiness comes not only from pleasures of life, but it also comes from the alternance of being "hungry" for taking a rest and taking a rest or from the alternance of being hungry and eating a delicious meal, so happiness comes from the difficulties of life that make us more hungry for(and this gives a much greater intensity to pleasures of life, and this makes you much more happy) or make us appreciate much more the pleasures of life, so they make us more happy, and i think this is the secret of life, so then life is not absurd, since the meaning of life is that we are getting happiness from this kind of mechanism that looks like the alternance of the day and night from where comes beauty and a kind of pleasure, so then we have to be careful by being selective of the kind of pleasures of life that make us happy so that for example to not be too much materialism that causes problems.


From where comes happiness and pleasures of life?


It is like beauty of the alternance of the day and night, from this alternance of the day and night comes beauty and a kind of pleasure, so i think that happiness comes from this kind of alternance, i mean that for example you will get a great pleasure from eating a Moroccan Couscous Bidaoui(read about it below) when you are hungry, so from this alternance of being hungry and eating a Moroccan Couscous comes this great pleasure of life that gives happiness and that gives the meaning of life, so you have to know how to be this alternance , i mean when for example you work hard and after that you give yourself peace by taking a rest and you also give yourself a pleasure like eating a Moroccan Couscous Bidaoui, you will get a great pleasure, so you have to know how to be this alternance of being hard work and giving yourself peace by taking a rest, this is from where comes happiness and this is from where comes the meaning of human existence.

More philosophy about the secret of life..

I think i am a wise man, and i think that life has like a secret,
and it is that it needs darkness and lightness but this
both darkness and lightness is happiness, since darkness of life
also become an insight that helps us, and also darkness of life
is as a level of suffering that allows us to appreciate simple pleasures of life or pleasures of life, and this mechanism of life that is a level of suffering that allows us to appreciate simple pleasures of life also allows us to be happy, so when you are a wise man you will notice that life is like a mechanism that is smart, since life is like Swarm intelligence that brings the best. So we have to be optimistic.


More philosophy about philosophy and Mensa IQ tests..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented
many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and i think i am
a philosopher, and today i will talk more about philosophy:

I think philosophy is also like a Mensa IQ test, since in philosophy
you have also to detect or discover the patterns or the important patterns with your fluid intelligence, and from those patterns
you get into the details etc. so i will give you an example,
so notice how i am detecting or discovering patterns with
my fluid intelligence in my following thoughts of my philosophy, it is
like i am solving a Mensa IQ test with my fluid intelligence:

Look at how i am discoreving or detecting the following pattern with my fluid intelligence:

More explanation about the rule of "work smart and not hard"..


I will be more logically rigorous and explain more, so read my logical proof:


I have just looked at the following video, i invite you to look at it:


People who say "work smart not hard" pretty much always fail | James Gosling and Lex Fridman


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaho2mbaVGM&t=99s


Here is James Gosling:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gosling


And here is Lex Fridman:


https://lexfridman.com/#:~:text=Lex%20Fridman%3A%20I'm%20an,Teaching%3A%20deeplearning.mit.edu


I think i am a white arab that is smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and i say that Lex Fridman and James Gosling in the above video are not smart by saying that "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail, and notice that Lex Fridman says that
the "not hard" in the rule means lazy, but this is not logically correct, since if the statistical distribution of the strenght and force of the work is normal in the real world , so i have to discern with my fluid intelligence that it is a system that means "work smart and not hard" and it can mean: "work smart and using an average force or strenght", so then it means that this system or rule doesn't pretty much always fail, also we can generalize and say: since the truth of "work smart and not hard pretty much always fail" depends on the statistical distribution(of the strenght and force of the work) in the real world, so we can not generalize and say that the rule of "work smart and not hard" pretty much always fail.



I give you another example, look also at the following patterns that i am finding with my fluid intelligence:


What is it to be smart ?


Read my following thoughts:


I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart"..


So i will start it by inviting you to read carefully the following webpage from a Senior Consultant (and former Editor-in-Chief and Publishing Director) of New Scientist and Author of After the Ice:


Why are humans smarter than other animals?


https://www.edge.org/response-detail/12021


So as you are noticing he is saying the following:


--
"The idea of human superiority should have died when Darwin came on the scene.
Unfortunately, the full implications of what he said have been difficult to take in: there is no Great Chain of Being, no higher and no lower. All creatures have adapted effectively to their own environments in their own way. Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy among many others, not the top of a long ladder. It took a surprisingly long time for scientists to grasp this. For decades, comparative psychologists tried to work out the learning abilities of different species so that they could be arranged on a single scale. Animal equivalents of intelligence tests were used and people seriously asked whether fish were smarter than birds. It took the new science of ethology, created by Nobel-prize winners Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch, to show that each species had the abilities it needed for its own lifestyle and they could not be not arranged on a universal scale. Human smartness is no smarter than anyone else's smartness. The question should have died for good."
--


So i think i am smart and say that the above webpage is not so smart, because the logical reasoning defect is that he is first saying the following:


"Human "smartness" is just a particular survival strategy"


This is the first logical defect, since he is like using boolean logic by saying that human smartness is only a particular survival strategy, and this is not correct logical reasoning, because we have like to be fuzzy logic and say that not all humans are using smartness for only survival, since we are not like animals, since we have not to think it only societally, but we can also say there is a great proportion of humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition than only survival. So now we can say with human smartness (and measure it with human smartness) that the humans that have transcended there "survival" condition with there smartness to be a much better human condition have a much superior smartness than animals, since we can measure it with human smartness, and here is the definition of surviving in the dictionary:


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/survive


So as you are noticing that survival is only to remain alive, so i am logical in my thoughts above.


The second logical defect of the above webpage is the following:


Notice that the above webpage that he is saying the following:


"Strangley enough, even evolutionary biologists still get caught up with the notion that humans stand at the apex of existence. There are endless books from evolutionary biologists speculating on the reasons why humans evolved such wonderful big brains, but a complete absence of those which ask if a big brains is a really useful organ to have. The evidence is far from persuasive. If you look at a wide range of organisms, those with bigger brains are generally no more successful than those with smaller brains — hey go extinct just as fast."


So i think that the above webpage is not right.


So notice again that he is saying that the brain must be successful in survival, and this is not correct reasoning, since as i said above smartness is not only about survival, since we have to measure it with our smartness and notice that from also my above thoughts that we can be humans that are much more smart than animals even if we go extinct.


So the important thing to notice in my above logical reasoning , is that you have to measure smartness with smartness, it is the same as my following logical proof about: Is beauty universal ? , here it is , read it carefully:


I will make you understand with smartness what about the following webpage:


Look at the following webpage from BBC:


The myth of universal beauty


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150622-the-myth-of-universal-beauty


So notice in the above webpage that it is saying the following about beauty:


"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"


So you have to understand that the above webpage from BBC is not smart, i will make you understand with smartness that beauty is universal, so if we take the following sentence of the above webpage:


"Where starvation is a risk, heavier weight is more attractive"


So you have to put it in the context of the above webpage, and understand that the way of thinking of the webpage from BBC is not smart, because it is saying that since in the above sentence starvation is a risk , so heavier weight can be more attractive, but this can be heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes, so it makes a conclusion that universal beauty is not universal, but this is not smart because we have not to measure beautifulness with only our eyes and say that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is not beautiful, because we have to measure it with smartness and say that smartness says that in the above sentence that heavier weight that is not beautiful for the eyes is beautiful for smartness because starvation is a risk, so then with smartness we can say that beauty is universal. So we have to know that that the system of reference of measure is very important, by logical analogy we can say that measuring beautifulness with the eyes is like measuring individual smartness with only genetics, but measuring beautifulness with both the eyes and smartness is like measuring individual smartness with both the genetical and the cultural.


Look also at how i am finding the following pattern with my fluid intelligence:

More precision about capitalism and about National Vanguard..


I will be more rigorous, so read again:


I have just read the following article from a white supremacist website called National Vanguard:


Why Capitalism Fails


https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/07/why-capitalism-fails/


And it is saying the following about why capitalism fails:


"Capitalism permits inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a esignated new owner upon the death of the previous owner. And therein is the flaw: inherited wealth isn’t earned by its owner, yet it leads to a class segregation of men that has nothing to do with how much wealth they have earned; i.e., nothing to do with how much or how well or how significantly they have worked."


I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have invented many scalable algorithms, and i will answer with my fluid intelligence: I think the above article is not taking into account the risk factor and and the smartness factor, so there have to be mechanisms, that are like engines, that "encourage" to or/and "make" a part of the people work by taking risks or great risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and that "encourage" to or/and "make" the smartest to give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich), so i think capitalism has those mechanisms in form of rewards by allowing to become "rich" and in form of rewards by allowing inheritance, the command transfer of private property to a designated new owner upon the death of the previous owner: Since it "encourages" to or/and "makes" a part of the people work by taking risks and by doing there best (so that to become rich) or/and it encourages to or/and makes the smartest give there best with there smartness (so that to become rich).


And notice that i am also defining taking a "risk" as working "hard".


And the above article is saying the following:


"Capitalism constantly looks for ways to reduce labor costs. Automation made human labor less necessary than it had been when capitalism first appeared. When automation did appear, people who had the talent, the skills, and the motivation to make contributions began to find no jobs, or to become uncompetitive with mass-production if they tried to employ themselves."


I think it is not true, because read the following:


https://singularityhub.com/2019/01/01/ai-will-create-millions-more-jobs-than-it-will-destroy-heres-how/


And read the following:


Here is the advantages and disadvantages of automation:


Following are some of the advantages of automation:


1. Automation is the key to the shorter workweek. Automation will allow
the average number of working hours per week to continue to decline,
thereby allowing greater leisure hours and a higher quality life.


2. Automation brings safer working conditions for the worker. Since
there is less direct physical participation by the worker in the
production process, there is less chance of personal injury to the worker.


3. Automated production results in lower prices and better products. It
has been estimated that the cost to machine one unit of product by
conventional general-purpose machine tools requiring human operators may
be 100 times the cost of manufacturing the same unit using automated
mass-production techniques. The electronics industry offers many
examples of improvements in manufacturing technology that have
significantly reduced costs while increasing product value (e.g., colour
TV sets, stereo equipment, calculators, and computers).


4. The growth of the automation industry will itself provide employment
opportunities. This has been especially true in the computer industry,
as the companies in this industry have grown (IBM, Digital Equipment
Corp., Honeywell, etc.), new jobs have been created.
These new jobs include not only workers directly employed by these
companies, but also computer programmers, systems engineers, and other
needed to use and operate the computers.


5. Automation is the only means of increasing standard of living. Only
through productivity increases brought about by new automated methods of
production, it is possible to advance standard of living. Granting wage
increases without a commensurate increase in productivity
will results in inflation. To afford a better society, it is a must to
increase productivity.


Following are some of the disadvantages of automation:


1. Automation will result in the subjugation of the human being by a
machine. Automation tends to transfer the skill required to perform work
from human operators to machines. In so doing, it reduces the need for
skilled labour. The manual work left by automation requires lower skill
levels and tends to involve rather menial tasks (e.g., loading and
unloading workpart, changing tools, removing chips, etc.). In this
sense, automation tends to downgrade factory work.


2. There will be a reduction in the labour force, with resulting
unemployment. It is logical to argue that the immediate effect of
automation will be to reduce the need for human labour, thus displacing
workers.


3. Automation will reduce purchasing power. As machines replace workers
and these workers join the unemployment ranks, they will not receive the
wages necessary to buy the products brought by automation. Markets will
become saturated with products that people cannot afford to purchase.
Inventories will grow. Production will stop. Unemployment will reach
epidemic proportions and the result will be a massive economic depression.


And look at how i am finding the following pattern with my fluid intelligence:

More precision about white supremacism and neo-nazism and the far-right and nationalism..

I invite you to look at the following video of Dieudonné that shows
that being a president that is an engineer is not sufficient, since
we have also to be the right philosophy, and we have also to know how to think philosophically, and being able to be this thinking philosophically needs being able of being psychology with people, so i invite you to look at the following video to notice:

Dieudonné - le président africain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJxty9sJUAc


So as you have just noticed my today talk is about white supremacism and neo-nazism and the far-right and nationalism.


So the first philosophical question is how to talk about
those above ideologies?

I think that it is also like a Mensa IQ test, so since i think i am smart, i have to use my smartness to solve the Mensa IQ test, so when you are smart, so how can you solve the problem(that is like a Mensa IQ test) of those above ideologies ? i think that i have first to detect the important pattern with my fluid intelligence, and i have to see clearly the pattern(like for example getting into the details from the abstraction of the pattern), and the important pattern is the following:

Notice that it is like an optimization problem of artificial intelligence that looks like PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), it is what we call Swarm intelligence, and in PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) there is what we call local optimization that we call exploitation, and there is what we call global optimization that we call exploration(read about PSO in my thoughts below so that to understand), so if PSO is not balanced correctly with exploitation and exploration it can not converge to the global optimum, we say that PSO has to guarantee the optimal convergence, so if it is not correctly balanced with both exploitation and exploration it can get stuck in a local maximum and not to converge to global optimum, so then notice that with logical analogy, exploration and exploitation of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization) is in philosophy like seeking the right balance between individualism and collectivism that guarantees the optimal convergence like in PSO, or it is like seeking the right balance between collaboration and competition that guarantees the optimal convergence like in PSO, so then since the above ideologies are nationalism and nationalism is too much local optimization and lack of global optimization , it is too much competition and lack of collaboration or cooperation, so it is by logical analogy like too much exploitation and lack of exploration in PSO, so this is not good and here is how to notice it , read the following:

Read the following article about economic nationalism:

Rise of Economic Nationalism and Its Implications


https://www.lewisu.edu/experts/wordpress/index.php/rise-of-economic-nationalism-and-its-implications/


Notice that it says the following:


"Countries benefit with cooperation between countries to mutual benefit, becoming too nationalistic at the expense of its partners is counterproductive. It is an approach that creates conflict. Being more nationalistic tends to be a zero sum game in an increasingly interdependent world economy, where countries depend on other countries for their economic and political and national security well being. When companies cooperate, they can become more competitive. When they are more competitive, they hire more workers, pay higher salaries, and otherwise contribute to economic growth. Economic nationalism is a bad policy."

So a you are noticing that nationalism is not the right way to do.

This is why i also said the following:

More political philosophy about globalization and nationalism..

I am a white arab and i think i am more smart, so today i will
talk about a very important subject about Globalization and nationalism,
so i will invite you to look at the following video of Marine Le Pen of
the far-right political party in France:

Marine Le Pen explains why nationalism is important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNpI9wKnE8Q


As you notice that Marine Le Pen is saying in french that the
fight today is between nationalism and globalization, since
Marine Le Pen says that globalization is a treat to national
identity and is a treat to national sovereignty, but i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly globalization, since i think that nationalism is too much competition and communism and socialism is too much collaboration , so i think the best way is to seek like a balance between collaboration and competition and when we look
at globalization you will notice that we are collaborating with others by for example sharing Open Source softwares or Free softwares or PhD papers or knowledge on internet etc, and we are also competition by not collaborating with others, and with this new kind of model we are noticing that we are not just one identity like being french, but we are becoming multiple identities because this kind of new model is making a part of us that collaborate "universal", and this is why i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly this new kind of model of like seeking a balance between competition and collaboration , and i think that this new model is better because it is more efficient , because i think this partly collaboration of this new model is good and more efficient for creativity, innovation, adaptability and speed of progress, i also think in capitalism the price of internet has gotten cheap and the price of computers has gotten cheap, so we are able today to access internet with a low price and benefit from "collaboration" and also sharing in internet, for example look at me, i have invented many scalable algorithms and i have decided to share some of them with the others, and it is of course collaboration , so look for example at my following inventions of scalable algorithms that i have shared with others, here they are:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.programming.threads/VaOo1WVACgs

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well

Also i have decided to not share others of my scalable algorithms and it is competition, so i am seeking like a balance between collaboration and competition.


USA FBI motto is Fidelity , Bravery and and Integrity..

I invite you to look at the following interesting video about USA FBI:

Learn more about FBI special Agents

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt4xevmGo2I


I think that FBI wants "order", and i think that in philosophy knowing
how to be order is so important, and order can be considered pleasure of life, read my following part of my philosophy about order and respect so that to understand it:

More philosophy about order and respect..

I have just read the following about the importance of respect for a society. i invite you to read it:

https://steemit.com/sndbox/@teachblogger/the-importance-of-respect-for-a-society

So read my following thoughts so that to understand more about respect
and order:

Note: I am saying below the following: "and order and respect can be considered pleasures of life", and the "can" indicates possibility.


More philosophy about the traditional Japanese lifestyle..

So look carefully at the following video of everyday life in bygone days in Tokyo in year 1966:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvoZjbp9R1w

I am a white arab and i think i am smart, and when i just looked at the above video , i have just detected an important "pattern" with my fluid intelligence, and it is that Japanese of year 1966 were people that were apt at knowing how to appreciate simple pleasures of life and how to appreciate order, so then they were knowing how to be respect too so that to be order, and order and respect can be considered pleasures of life, so i think that they were happy people, and knowing how to appreciate simple pleasures of life like were doing the Japanese of year 1966 is a very important rule in philosophy because it avoids disorder in a society, the second rule in philosophy that avoids disorder in a society is that you have to know how to be the "effort" of being order and responsability.


More philosophy about what is artificial intelligence and more..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms, and when you are smart you will easily understand artificial intelligence, this is why i am finding artificial intelligence easy to learn, i think to be able to understand
artificial intelligence you have to understand reasoning with energy minimization, like with PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization), but
you have to be smart since the Population based algorithm has to guarantee the optimal convergence, and this is why i am learning
you how to do it(read below), i think that GA(genetic algorithm) is
good for teaching it, but GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and after learning how to do reasoning with energy minimization in artificial intelligence, you have to understand what is transfer learning in artificial intelligence with PathNet or such, this transfer learning permits to train faster and require less labeled data, also PathNET is much more powerful since also it is higher level abstraction in artificial intelligence..

Read about it here:

https://mattturck.com/frontierai/


And read about PathNet here:

https://medium.com/@thoszymkowiak/deepmind-just-published-a-mind-blowing-paper-pathnet-f72b1ed38d46


More about artificial intelligence..

I think one of the most important part in artificial intelligence is reasoning with energy minimization, it is the one that i am working on right now, see the following video to understand more about it:

Yann LeCun: Can Neural Networks Reason?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAfwNEY826I&t=250s

I think that since i have just understood much more artificial intelligence, i will soon show you my next Open source software project that implement a powerful Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO, and i will write an article that explain
much more artificial intelligence and what is smartness and what is
consciousness and self-awareness..

And in only one day i have just learned "much" more artificial intelligence, i have read the following article about Particle Swarm Optimization and i have understood it:

Artificial Intelligence - Particle Swarm Optimization

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2011/august/artificial-intelligence-particle-swarm-optimization

But i have just noticed that the above implementation doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence.

So here is how to guarantee the optimal convergence in PSO:

Clerc and Kennedy in (Trelea 2003) propose a constriction coefficient parameter selection guidelines in order to guarantee the optimal convergence, here is how to do it with PSO:

v(t+1) = k*[(v(t) + (c1 * r1 * (p(t) – x(t)) + (c2 * r2 * (g(t) – x(t))]

x(t+1) = x(t) + v(t+1)

constriction coefficient parameter is:

k = 2/abs(2-phi-sqrt(phi^2-(4*phi)))

k:=2/abs((2-4.1)-(0.640)) = 0.729

phi = c1 + c2

To guarantee the optimal convergence use:

c1 = c2 = 2.05

phi = 4.1 => k equal to 0.729

w=0.7298

Population size = 60;


Also i have noticed that GA(genetic algorithm) doesn't guarantee the optimal convergence, and SA(Simulated annealing) and Hill Climbing are much less powerful since they perform only exploitation.

In general, any metaheuristic should perform two main searching capabilities (Exploration and Exploitation). Population based algorithms ( or many solutions ) such as GA, PSO, ACO, or ABC, performs both Exploration and Exploitation, while Single-Based Algorithm such as SA(Simulated annealing), Hill Climbing, performs the exploitation only.

In this case, more exploitation and less exploration increases the chances for trapping in local optima. Because the algorithm does not have the ability to search in another position far from the current best solution ( which is Exploration).

Simulated annealing starts in one valley and typically ends in the lowest point of the same valley. Whereas swarms start in many different places of the mountain range and are searching for the lowest point in many valleys simultaneously.

And in my next Open source software project i will implement a powerful
Parallel Linear programming solver and a powerful Parallel Mixed-integer programming solver with Artificial intelligence using PSO.


The exploration and exploitation of PSO(Particle Swarm Optimization)
in artificial intelligence is by logical analogy like seeking a balance between competition and collaboration, so read my following thoughts of my political philosophy about it:


More political philosophy about globalization and nationalism..

I am a white arab and i think i am more smart, so today i will
talk about a very important subject about Globalization and nationalism,
so i will invite you to look at the following video of Marine Le Pen of
the far-right political party in France:

Marine Le Pen explains why nationalism is important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNpI9wKnE8Q


As you notice that Marine Le Pen is saying in french that the
fight today is between nationalism and globalization, since
Marine Le Pen says that globalization is a treat to national
identity and is a treat to national sovereignty, but i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly globalization, since i think that nationalism is too much competition and communism and socialism is too much collaboration , so i think the best way is to seek like a balance between collaboration and competition and when we look
at globalization you will notice that we are collaborating with others by for example sharing Open Source softwares or Free softwares or PhD papers or knowledge on internet etc, and we are also competition by not collaborating with others, and with this new kind of model we are noticing that we are not just one identity like being french, but we are becoming multiple identities because this kind of new model is making a part of us that collaborate "universal", and this is why i think that Marine Le Pen is not understanding correctly this new kind of model of like seeking a balance between competition and collaboration , and i think that this new model is better because it is more efficient , because i think this partly collaboration of this new model is good and more efficient for creativity, innovation, adaptability and speed of progress, i also think in capitalism the price of internet has gotten cheap and the price of computers has gotten cheap, so we are able today to access internet with a low price and benefit from "collaboration" and also sharing in internet, for example look at me, i have invented many scalable algorithms and i have decided to share some of them with the others, and it is of course collaboration , so look for example at my following inventions of scalable algorithms that i have shared with others, here they are:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-mlock

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-rwlock-that-works-accross-processes-and-threads

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.programming.threads/VaOo1WVACgs

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well

Also i have decided to not share others of my scalable algorithms and it is competition, so i am seeking like a balance between collaboration and competition.


More philosophy about emotionality about life..

You can be emotional by looking at life, this is understandable,
but you have to be smart, since you have to be able to see
the beautifulness of life, and it is that life is like Swarm intelligence, so life is smart, so we have to be optimistic about it.

I invite you to read the following article about Swarm intelligence:

https://hbr.org/2001/05/swarm-intelligence-a-whole-new-way-to-think-about-business

And read the following about about Swarm intelligence:

How Swarm Intelligence Is Making Simple Tech Much Smarter

https://singularityhub.com/2018/02/08/how-swarm-intelligence-is-making-simple-tech-much-smarter/

I think i am also a philosopher, and i can also invent proverbs,
here is yet another new smart proverb of mine:

"There is an important difference between the appearance of a reality and the truth of a reality, this is why in science you have not to be confident with the appearances, since in science you have to understand the truth, so, to be able to understand the truth you have to know how to be patience before understanding the truth and not to rush in like a fool by lack of wisdom "

And here is another proverb of mine:

"Wich one has to precede, being able to reason correctly
or to rush in like a fool without being able to reason correctly? when you are able to answer correctly this question, you will understand a very important principle that makes you much more wise."

Here is another new proverb of mine..

"A wise man is by "logical" analogy like the person that knows how to prepare a good meal from ingredients, since a wise man is the one that knows how to prepare a well organized society or well organized global world from the people."

And here is my other new proverb:

Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting"

Read here:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection


This is the definition of perfection above that I use below in my explanation of my new proverb.


Here is all my explanation of my new proverb below:


My new proverb comes to me from the essence of morality that I explained to you in my political philosophy that I wrote in English, since in morality we are pushed towards the pretty tomorrow because we are aware of this pretty perfume that is the perfection that pushes us or encourages us to be or allows us to become perfect or greatly perfect.


Read about it here on my thoughts of my political philosophy about morality:


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.culture.morocco/7UmkfURwoU4


So here is my new proverb:


"Life is like the pretty perfume that calls us to be a pretty tomorrow!"


So notice carefully my smart play on words in my new proverb, i think it's smart, and you have to know that the future perfection depends on the present perfection, so when today we are responsibility to be the pretty perfection so that to build the pretty tomorrow, then the pretty perfection of today is part of the pretty tomorrow, and the "pretty perfume" in my new proverb is also the today pretty perfection, but you have to understand the symbolic which allows us to say that being this part of the pretty tomorrow is also like being the pretty tomorrow. It is what makes it a smart proverb.



About more of my philosophy about smartness..


You will think that smartness is much more genetical, but this is a big mistake, since i think i am smart and i will explain:


If you want to climb a big mountain, there is two ways:


You can climb the big mountain or you can make the big mountain small in height so that to climb it, so when you are smart you will take a look at the constraints that make smartness much less expressive, and those constraints that make smartness much less expressive is like making the mountain small in height so that to climb it. Read more my following thoughts to understand:


More philosophy about smartness and abstraction and complexity..


So i will start by asking a question:


Is the way of learning by abstraction an efficient way ?


So when you are smart you will quickly notice that we have to take into account the "context" of the way of learning by abstraction, and when you are smart you will notice that the way of learning by abstraction is also to reduce complexity, but when you take into account the context you will notice that learning by abstraction is a also a "specialization" and it is also an efficient way of learning when we measure it inside the "context" of abstraction that is the reality, so then we have not to be pessimistic about learning by the efficient way of abstraction since, first, it reduces the complexity and, second, even if we are not understanding the complexity behind the abstraction, learning by abstraction is also an efficient specialization that is efficient for adaptability, so we have to know how to balance between those that are required to understand the complexity behind the abstraction and those that are required to learn by the way of abstraction that is a specialization.


More philosophy about the way of learning by abstraction..


I will give you an example so that you understand, so if you ask what is the way of learning by abstraction, look at my following tutorial where i am presenting my methodology that, first, permits to model the synchronization primitives of parallel programs with logic primitives with If-then-OR-AND so that to make it easy to translate to petri nets so that to detect deadlocks in parallel programs, please take a look at it because this tutorial of mine is the way of learning by abstraction:


How to analyse parallel applications with Petri Nets


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/how-to-analyse-parallel-applications-with-petri-nets


I think i am smart and i will explain more what is smartness..


So that you understand me more, let us say that you are measuring a human IQ, so if it is high human IQ , this value is a measure that is relative to the other human IQs, so you will say that this high IQ is much better at adaptability than the other humans, but it is not correct measure, because even science and technology have constraints that constrain(or limit greatly) the expressiveness of human IQs, so then we can not say that a high human IQ is better at adaptability than the other humans..


More philosophy about how to measure human IQ or human smartness..


I think i am smart, and i will talk about how to measure human IQs or human smartness, first you have to know that you can measure relatively or absolutely, so if you measure the IQ of a human, you will give a value of IQ that is "relative" to the distribution of IQs of humans, so can we ask if it is the right way to measure human IQs? i think it is not, because there is a "very" important thing that is missing, and it is that you have to also measure IQ or smartness relatively to the "constraints" in our reality that constrain(or limit) human IQ or human smartness, and i think this will give a much more realistic measure of human IQs or human smartness, so if you are really smart you will start by searching what are those constraints in the reality that constrain human IQs or human smartness, because this way you will become really smart.


Let me give an example about how to measure IQs or smartness..


So if you are really smart you will give a smart example so that people can understand, so here it is:


If i say: 2 + 2 = 4


So you will notice that this equality is also constrained by constraints of reality, since for example you are noticing that it is not so mathematically expressive, so this not mathematically expressive is also constraining human IQ or human smartness, since if you understand and learn this mathematical equality, another person will quickly do the same, so the other person will adapt quickly to this level of smartness, so now you are noticing the smart idea, it is that even science and technology are constrained the same way, and this constraints on science and technology constrain or limit the expressiveness of high human IQs or high level of smartness so that other lower level human IQs or smartness can attain the level of adaptability of high human IQs, this is what is happening in our today world, and if you are smart you will notice that there is something else that is happening and it is that abstraction of complexity that reduce the complexity is making others not understanding the complexity behind the abstraction and this is not so efficient.


Here is more about the constraints on science and technology:


Is Science Going To End?


Read more here:


https://philosophynow.org/issues/68/Is_Science_Going_To_End


And read also the following


The Industrial Era Ended, and So Will the Digital Era


Read more here:


https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-industrial-era-ended-and-so-will-the-digital-era


More political philosophy about what is smartness..


I give you an example so that you understand:


If i give the following three words:


I, love, you.


It is not the same as if i give the following five words:


I, love, you, very, much


So you are noticing that the five words permit a more sophisticated expressiveness, and notice that i am saying more sophisticated, since the five words bring more efficiency, and this bringing more efficiency is also what we call smartness, but notice that this smartness is brought by using the "tool" that is composed of the five words, so the tool that is our english language brings smartness, so then we have to be convinced by the fact that the tool like internet brings a much more efficiency and this much more efficiency brings much more smartness, so now you are noticing that smartness is not only genetical or cultural, but it is also the smartness of using the tool, and this is a very important thing, since the tool can be powerful and it can advance very much a human and can make a human really smart. So you have to understand that we are also in an Era of powerful tools such as internet that can advance very much a human and that can make a human really smart.

And now i will ask a philosophical question:


How to manage efficiently complexity ?


I think you can manage complexity by the “divide and rule” approach
to management, which also leads to hierarchical division of large organisations, or wich also leads to the Division of "labour", you can read more about the Division of labour here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour


Also you can manage complexity by using constraints, such as laws, road rules and commercial standards, all of which limit the potential for harmful interactions to occur, also you can manage complexity by using higher layers of abstraction such as in computer programming, and we can also follow the efficient rule of: "Do less and do it better" that can also use higher level layers of abstraction to enhance productivity and quality, this rule is good for productivity and quality, and about productivity: I have also just posted about the following thoughts from the following PhD computer scientist:


https://lemire.me/blog/about-me/


Read more here his thoughts about productivity:


https://lemire.me/blog/2012/10/15/you-cannot-scale-creativity/


And i think he is making a mistake:


Since we have that Productivity = Output/Input


But better human training and/or better tools and/or better human smartness and/or better human capacity can make the Parallel productivity part much bigger that the Serial productivity part, so it can scale much more (it is like Gustafson's Law).


And it looks like the following:


About parallelism and about Gustafson’s Law..


Gustafson’s Law:


• If you increase the amount of work done by each parallel
task then the serial component will not dominate
• Increase the problem size to maintain scaling
• Can do this by adding extra complexity or increasing the overall
problem size


Scaling is important, as the more a code scales the larger a machine it
can take advantage of:


• can consider weak and strong scaling
• in practice, overheads limit the scalability of real parallel programs
• Amdahl’s law models these in terms of serial and parallel fractions
• larger problems generally scale better: Gustafson’s law


Load balance is also a crucial factor.


So read my following thoughts about the Threadpool to notice that my Threadpool that scales very well does Load balance well:


---


About the Threadpool..


I have just read the following:


Concurrency - Throttling Concurrency in the CLR 4.0 ThreadPool


https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-magazine/2010/september/concurrency-throttling-concurrency-in-the-clr-4-0-threadpool


But i think that both the methodologies from Microsoft of the Hill Climbing and of the Control Theory using band pass filter or match filter and discrete Fourier transform have a weakness, there weakness is that they are "localized" optimization that maximize the throughput , so they are not fair, so i don't think i will implement them, so then you can use my following invention of an efficient Threadpool engine with priorities that scales very well (and you can use a second Threadpool for IO etc.):


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well


And here is my other Threadpool engine with priorities:


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/threadpool-engine-with-priorities


And read my following previous thoughts to understand more:


About the strategy of "work depth-first; steal breadth-first"..


I have just read the following webpage:


Why Too Many Threads Hurts Performance, and What to do About It


https://www.codeguru.com/cpp/sample_chapter/article.php/c13533/Why-Too-Many-Threads-Hurts-Performance-and-What-to-do-About-It.htm


Also I have just looked at the following interesting video about Go scheduler and Go concurrency:


Dmitry Vyukov — Go scheduler: Implementing language with lightweight concurrency


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K11rY57K7k


And i have just read the following webpage about the Threadpool of microsoft .NET 4.0:


https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jennifer/2009/06/26/work-stealing-in-net-4-0/


And as you are noticing the first web link above is speaking about the strategy of "work depth-first; steal breadth-first" , but we have to be more smart because i think that this strategy, that is advantageous for cache locality, works best for recursive algorithms, because a thread is taking the first task and after that the algorithm is recursive, so it will put the childs tasks inside the local work-stealing queue, and the other threads will start to take from the work-stealing queue, so the work will be distributed correctly, but as you will notice that this strategy works best for recursive algorithms, but when you you iteratively start many tasks, i think we will have much more contention on the work-stealing queue and this is a weakness of this strategy, other than that when it is not a recursive algorithm and the threads are receiving from the global queue so there will be high contention on the global queue and this is not good. MIT's Cilk and Go scheduler and the Threadpool of Microsoft and Intel® C++ TBB are using this strategy of "work depth-first; steal breadth-first". And as you are noticing that they are giving more preference to cache locality than scalability.


But in my following invention of a Threadpool that scales very well i am
giving more preference to scalability than to cache locality:


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well


Other than that when you are doing IO with my Threadpool, you can use asychronous IO by starting a dedicated thread to IO to be more efficient, or you can start another of my Threadpool and use it for tasks that uses IO, you can use the same method when threads of the my Threadpool are waiting or sleeping..


Other than that for recursion and the stack overflow problem you can convert your function from a recursive to iterative to solve the problem of stack overflow.


Other than that to be able to serve a great number of internet connections or TCP/IP socket connections you can use my Threadpool with my powerful Object oriented Stackful coroutines library for Delphi and FreePascal here:


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/object-oriented-stackful-coroutines-library-for-delphi-and-freepascal


---


And enhancing productivity is also related to my following powerful product that i have designed and implemented(that can also be applied to organizations):


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-freepascal


Please read the following about Applying the Universal Scalability Law to organisations:


https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/04/29/applying-the-universal-scalability-law-to-organisations/


Yet more philosophy about quality control and quality..


So first you have to define quality(read below about it) and second you have to construct quality and third you have to control quality.


So, I have just read the following about the Central Limit Theorem (I understood it), i invite you to read it carefully:


https://www.probabilitycourse.com/chapter7/7_1_2_central_limit_theorem.php


So as you are noticing this Central Limit Theorem is so important for quality control, read the following to notice it(I also understood Statistical Process Control (SPC)):


An Introduction to Statistical Process Control (SPC)


https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/19494/An-Introduction-to-Statistical-Process-Control-SPC.aspx


Also PERT networks are referred to by some researchers as "probabilistic activity networks" (PAN) because the duration of some or all of the arcs are independent random variables with known probability distribution functions, and have finite ranges. So PERT uses the central limit theorem (CLT) to find the expected project duration.


So, i have designed and implemented my PERT++ that that is important for quality, please read about it and download it from my website here:


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/pert-an-enhanced-edition-of-the-program-or-project-evaluation-and-review-technique-that-includes-statistical-pert-in-delphi-and-freepascal


---


So I have provided you in my PERT++ with the following functions:


function NormalDistA (const Mean, StdDev, AVal, BVal: Extended): Single;


function NormalDistP (const Mean, StdDev, AVal: Extended): Single;


function InvNormalDist(const Mean, StdDev, PVal: Extended; const Less: Boolean): Extended;


For NormalDistA() or NormalDistP(), you pass the best estimate of completion time to Mean, and you pass the critical path standard deviation to StdDev, and you will get the probability of the value Aval or the probability between the values of Aval and Bval.


For InvNormalDist(), you pass the best estimate of completion time to Mean, and you pass the critical path standard deviation to StdDev, and you will get the length of the critical path of the probability PVal, and when Less is TRUE, you will obtain a cumulative distribution.


So as you are noticing from my above thoughts that since PERT networks are referred to by some researchers as "probabilistic activity networks" (PAN) because the duration of some or all of the arcs are independent random variables with known probability distribution functions, and have finite ranges. So PERT uses the central limit theorem (CLT) to find the expected project duration. So then you have to use my above functions
that are Normal distribution and inverse normal distribution functions, please look at my demo inside my zip file to understand better how i am doing it:


You can download and read about my PERT++ from my website here:


https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/pert-an-enhanced-edition-of-the-program-or-project-evaluation-and-review-technique-that-includes-statistical-pert-in-delphi-and-freepascal


More of my philosophy about Niklaus Wirth and about the good taste..


Having good taste involves knowing what is truly excellent or of genuine value.


Read here to notice it:


What Is Good Taste?


https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/03/what-is-good-taste.html


And as you have just noticed i have just posted the following thoughts of Niklaus Wirth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth):


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/h_xKwu2gM44


And i think that Niklaus Wirth is too pessimistic on the above thoughts Since you have to know that an efficient education can permit to give you a good taste so that to be able to be efficiently selective, and this is valid for both the consumers and the producers of products or services.


And more of my philosophy about the good taste..


So let us look in the dictionary at what is the taste, it says the following:


"The taste is the sense by which the qualities and flavour of a substance are distinguished by the taste buds."


Read here in the dictionary to notice it:


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/taste


But when you are smart you will also notice that there is also the intellectual taste from culture or genetics, i mean that when you are genetically more rational and more smart you will notice that this more rational and more smart is also intellectual taste since with it you are able to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality, and this is also the same for culture, i mean when you enhance more your culture it enhances your intellectual taste and it permits you to be more efficiently selective of your knowledge, so it permits you to enhance quality.


So as you are noticing that the intellectual taste is so important..


And also don't forget to read my following philosophy about human existence..

I have just created a webpage on my website here about my philosophy
about human existence, you can read it carefully here:

https://scalable68.godaddysites.com/f/my-philosophy-about-human-existence


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.