doing exercises for starting forth, kinda discouraging, some are easy and some seem text not prepare me for....

[quiet_lad]

http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 25, 2:09 pm, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html

explanations make sense once open answer, but before I do I am often
stumped....

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/25/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html
>

Can you be more specific? What problems are you having trouble with?
Show us your attempted solutions.

It may help to type your way through the examples shown.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 25, 2:28 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 6/25/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
>
> >http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html
>
> Can you be more specific? What problems are you having trouble with?
> Show us your attempted solutions.
>
> It may help to type your way through the examples shown.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

2-3 2-4 2-5 I was like WOA!!
I then looked at the answers and now understand what was done.
Before looking I was daunted.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/25/12 11:43 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2:28 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html
>>
>> Can you be more specific? What problems are you having trouble with?
>> Show us your attempted solutions.
>>
>> It may help to type your way through the examples shown.

...

>
> 2-3 2-4 2-5 I was like WOA!!
> I then looked at the answers and now understand what was done.
> Before looking I was daunted.

You should be able to do those without looking. Go back to the start of
that chapter and actually type the examples they give, and look at the
results. Work your way through the chapter actually doing the examples.
Then when you get to the problem set, try to do the problems without
looking at the answers. The only way to learn Forth is by *typing*
things and thinking about the results.

[quiet_lad]

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

This is harder than I thought.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/25/12 2:01 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2:54�pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/12 11:43 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2:28 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.forth.com/starting-forth/sf2/sf2.html
>>
>>>> Can you be more specific? What problems are you having trouble with?
>>>> Show us your attempted solutions.
>>
>>>> It may help to type your way through the examples shown.
>> ...
>>
>>> 2-3 2-4 2-5 I was like WOA!!
>>> I then looked at the answers and now understand what was done.
>>> Before looking I was daunted.
>>
>> You should be able to do those without looking. Go back to the start of
>> that chapter and actually type the examples they give, and look at the
>> results. Work your way through the chapter actually doing the examples.
>> Then when you get to the problem set, try to do the problems without
>> looking at the answers. The only way to learn Forth is by *typing*
>> things and thinking about the results.
>
>

> This is harder than I thought.
>

It requires persistence and concentration. Keep at it! If something
isn't working as you expect, post it here or ask questions.

[quiet_lad]

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

I will. I think I read it through without trying to memorize each
thing as it appeared.
It was somewaht furstrating, but then I think ok 4 chapters in 1 day
maybe too much.
Will reread tomorrow.
The flags section with and and or stopped me dead again.
Will rest for today and reread 3 adn 4 tomorrow.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/25/12 6:30 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:38�pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 6/25/12 2:01 PM, quiet_lad wrote:

...

>>>>>> It may help to type your way through the examples shown.
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> 2-3 2-4 2-5 I was like WOA!!
>>>>> I then looked at the answers and now understand what was done.
>>>>> Before looking I was daunted.
>>
>>>> You should be able to do those without looking. Go back to the start of
>>>> that chapter and actually type the examples they give, and look at the
>>>> results. Work your way through the chapter actually doing the examples.
>>>> Then when you get to the problem set, try to do the problems without
>>>> looking at the answers. The only way to learn Forth is by *typing*
>>>> things and thinking about the results.
>>
>>> This is harder than I thought.
>>
>> It requires persistence and concentration. Keep at it! If something
>> isn't working as you expect, post it here or ask questions.
>

> I will. I think I read it through without trying to memorize each
> thing as it appeared.
> It was somewaht furstrating, but then I think ok 4 chapters in 1 day
> maybe too much.
> Will reread tomorrow.
> The flags section with and and or stopped me dead again.
> Will rest for today and reread 3 adn 4 tomorrow.

Start back with Chapter 2. Do not advance until you can work those
problems correctly without peeking at the answers. Then do the same with
Chapter 3.

If you try to go too fast you will be totally lost.

Each chapter builds on the previous one, so if you try to move on before
mastering the current chapter you'll be in trouble.

[Mark Wills]

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."

> ==================================================- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm with Elizabeth!

Keep at it! Don't be tempted to give up.

If you're like me, at one point you will have a massive "Oh! I *get
it*" moment, and Forth's simplistic beauty will open up right before
you.

Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!

Forth is a well kept secret, in my opinion!

[John Passaniti]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!

I kind of doubt it.

I'm all for gavino learning Forth and encourage him to continue. But as we've seen in his messages, his work is likely centered on system administration and operations. Forth is a great language... for embedded systems. Not so much for the kind of work he does.

He will invariably be told by someone that Forth would be an awesome spectacular language for system administration and operations work... once he builds up a library of routines to do what he wants. It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:

1, Learn Forth.
3. Use as system administration and operations language.

[Mark Wills]

Not at all. There's a life after work, you know. I wasn't assuming
that he wants to use Forth for work. As you say, it's not really
suitable as an administration language. I'm assuming he's simply
interested in learning a programming language, rather than a scripting
language. Of course, Forth is a good candidate for writing DSLs, so
Forth could be used as the back-bone of a Gavino administration
language, written around his exact requirements.

Don't be so negative!

>It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

[Alex McDonald]

Google it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2011/07/14/underpants-gnomes-political-economy/

The boys from South Park are due to give a presentation to voters in
which they explain why the town should prevent a giant corporation
(“Harbucks”) from opening next to Tweek’s Coffee, a local
establishment. They encounter a group of gnomes who have been stealing
underpants as part of a big plan, broken down into three phases:

Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit

When the gnomes are pressed on the question mark and asked how,
exactly, they get from underpants to profits, they don’t have a good
answer.

[quiet_lad]

I of course plan to replace LAMP with forth and open a series of
awesome websites of course, perhaps using the appserver by mr paysan.

I hold a degree in albiet misguided keynesian economics from top 20
school, and econ dept might be top 15 when I went. I have since
learned how austrain school economics IS economics and keynes was
simply a response by big government to fight the intellectual weapon
that would get in thier way. Even Henry George had better ideas. I
should be hired by Romney as economoic advisor. First thing I would
do is end all carpool lanes. Second I would mandate all governmetn
offices use unix desktop [free] not oracle or microsoft crap.

Some website ideas:
norecrutiers.org for jobs without recrutiers getting in the way.
petbay.org for those pets you need to find a family

I already have tcl and bash for systems administration.

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 26, 10:18 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:23 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> > > > Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
>
> > > I kind of doubt it.
>
> > > I'm all for gavino learning Forth and encourage him to continue.  But as we've seen in his messages, his work is likely centered on system administration and operations.  Forth is a great language... for embedded systems.  Not so much for the kind of work he does.
>
> > > He will invariably be told by someone that Forth would be an awesome spectacular language for system administration and operations work... once he builds up a library of routines to do what he wants.  It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:
>
> > > 1, Learn Forth.
> > > 3. Use as system administration and operations language.
>
> > Not at all. There's a life after work, you know. I wasn't assuming
> > that he wants to use Forth for work. As you say, it's not really
> > suitable as an administration language. I'm assuming he's simply
> > interested in learning a programming language, rather than a scripting
> > language. Of course, Forth is a good candidate for writing DSLs, so
> > Forth could be used as the back-bone of a Gavino administration
> > language, written around his exact requirements.
>
> > Don't be so negative!
>
> > >It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:
>
> > I have absolutely no idea what that means.
>

> Google it.http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2011/07/14/underpants-gnomes-po...

>
> The boys from South Park are due to give a presentation to voters in
> which they explain why the town should prevent a giant corporation
> (“Harbucks”) from opening next to Tweek’s Coffee, a local
> establishment. They encounter a group of gnomes who have been stealing
> underpants as part of a big plan, broken down into three phases:
>
> Phase 1: Collect Underpants
> Phase 2: ?
> Phase 3: Profit
>
> When the gnomes are pressed on the question mark and asked how,
> exactly, they get from underpants to profits, they don’t have a good
> answer.

Maybe the profit is just the experience of aquiring exciting
underpants, maybe they are kinky and wear them.

[quiet_lad]

ok I am back on ch2 and reading more slowly.
http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/sf2/sf2.html
so far so good

[John Passaniti]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:23:27 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> Not at all. There's a life after work, you know. I
> wasn't assuming that he wants to use Forth for work.

My assumption is that the variety of things he's talked about (which independent of his employment typically veers primarily toward system administration, operations, and common scripting tasks) reflects his primary interests.

> As you say, it's not really suitable as an
> administration language. I'm assuming he's simply
> interested in learning a programming language, rather
> than a scripting language.

Scripting languages aren't programming languages? Don't make me get out my Venn diagrams...

> Of course, Forth is a good candidate for writing DSLs,
> so Forth could be used as the back-bone of a Gavino
> administration language, written around his exact
> requirements.

And with enough effort and culinary skill, tofu can be made to taste like bacon. Or, one could just eat bacon. (If you're Vegan, substitute whatever you people from planet Vega eat.)

> Don't be so negative!

I don't think I'm being negative. A big part of learning about programming languages isn't just the syntax or semantics, but where that language makes sense. One can fight against the nature of a language, or one can work in harmony with it. You want to do sophisticated string processing in Fortran? Nobody's going to stop you, but I think there are better languages you might want to consider. You think recoding the ignition control system of your car in Perl is a keen idea? Go for it, but don't expect great results.

I think it's great that gavino may be moving toward more competence in Forth. But I also fearlessly predict without any qualification that once gavino really experiences how low-level of a language Forth is, he's going to run screaming to other languages.

That's not negative. That's a recognition-- based on the kinds of questions he asks and the applications he cites-- that he's not interested in Forth. He thinks he's interested because he's gotten caught up in the hype of Forth. But once he finds out that to do anything he needs to everything, he'll be running back to TCL and bash and other languages that handle all the dirty details for him. That's not a bad thing-- picking the right tool for the job is a fundamental skill of a programmer that he hasn't learned yet.

> >It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:
>
> I have absolutely no idea what that means.

Google is your friend. But basically, you did it in your reply. People love to say that Forth is the ideal language for *anything* because you can bend it as you wish. So step one is "learn Forth" and step three is "and there's your perfect language."

What's missing is that rather critical step two. It's usually glossed over in this newsgroup, so I welcome you to break that tradition and actually give gavino a rough estimate of how long it will take him to become competent enough in Forth to actually do what you said-- make the ideal gavino administration language.

Goals are fine. Realistic and attainable goals are better.

No, you don't know gavino, but assume past is prologue and come up with a realistic estimate. Feel free to factor in that the languages he currently knows (to whatever degree he knows them) shield him from the low-level details of string processing, memory management, file manipulation, and process management). Toss in he's using languages that automagically convert data types for him, and that offer out of the box associative arrays and other high level data structures. And think about how much of the infrastructure he takes for granted in a programming language is part of standard libraries contributed by a large community.

Again, I think it's great gavino is trying to learn Forth. I just think it's better to be honest and realistic with where he's likely to end up and to guide him to a deeper understanding of what makes Forth special and why that ultimately doesn't matter to the kinds of things he cares about.

Oh, and there is no Santa Claus.

[Josh Grams]

Mark Wills wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
>>> Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
>>
>> I kind of doubt it.
>

> Don't be so negative!

Gavino has been posting the same sorts of questions since...hmm, looks
like early 2006, on many different programming-language newsgroups
(python, lisp, scheme, haskell, php, tcl, forth, java, etc.). AFAICT he
has *never* demonstrated any level of knowledge on any subject beyond
what can be turned up with 30 seconds or so of internet searching.

So...tell me, what more would it take to convince you that calling him a
troll is not negative but simply realistic?

--Josh

[quiet_lad]

I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
too.
Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.

[quiet_lad]

Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have some great
skills. Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity, not to
mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea. I mean Hek I went to
school ranked ahead of some viy leagues but who cares? Ben bernanke
is fed chairman from princeton a good school and he is utter moron
doing exact opposite of what need to be done and he is nukking eocnomy.

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 26, 10:18 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:23 pm, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 26, 2:08 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:26:36 AM UTC-4, Mark Wills wrote:
> > > > Then you'll be angry that you missed out on this for so many years!
>
> > > I kind of doubt it.
>
> > > I'm all for gavino learning Forth and encourage him to continue.  But as we've seen in his messages, his work is likely centered on system administration and operations.  Forth is a great language... for embedded systems.  Not so much for the kind of work he does.
>
> > > He will invariably be told by someone that Forth would be an awesome spectacular language for system administration and operations work... once he builds up a library of routines to do what he wants.  It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:
>
> > > 1, Learn Forth.
> > > 3. Use as system administration and operations language.
>
> > Not at all. There's a life after work, you know. I wasn't assuming
> > that he wants to use Forth for work. As you say, it's not really
> > suitable as an administration language. I'm assuming he's simply
> > interested in learning a programming language, rather than a scripting
> > language. Of course, Forth is a good candidate for writing DSLs, so
> > Forth could be used as the back-bone of a Gavino administration
> > language, written around his exact requirements.
>
> > Don't be so negative!
>
> > >It's underwear gnome economics applied to programming languages:
>
> > I have absolutely no idea what that means.
>

> Google it.http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2011/07/14/underpants-gnomes-po...

>
> The boys from South Park are due to give a presentation to voters in
> which they explain why the town should prevent a giant corporation
> (“Harbucks”) from opening next to Tweek’s Coffee, a local
> establishment. They encounter a group of gnomes who have been stealing
> underpants as part of a big plan, broken down into three phases:
>
> Phase 1: Collect Underpants
> Phase 2: ?
> Phase 3: Profit
>
> When the gnomes are pressed on the question mark and asked how,
> exactly, they get from underpants to profits, they don’t have a good
> answer.

file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm check this out.

[Rod Pemberton]

"quiet_lad" <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aec9dc99-53cf-471f...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 26, 10:18 am, Alex McDonald <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:

...

> > [...]

>
> file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> check this out.

FYI, we can't. Where is that file located?

Due to the file://, that link is to a local file saved on your personal or
work or library computer, etc.

If it's something you created, you'll need to start a webserver and have it
serve that content. Then, you'll need to provide an internet link.

If you found that on the internet, you'll need to post the internet link.

An internet link will start with http:// or ftp:// or news:// etc. for
webpages, anonymous ftp, or Usenet respectively, and not with file:// which
is for local files. I.e., the link you should've posted would've had an IP
and port, or a DNS name. A port is needed if an IP is used or an
non-standard port is being used, e.g. 8080 instead of 80 for a local
webserver serving webpages. It should've had an IP and port, or DNS and a
username and password for ftp. It should've had an IP and port, or DNS and
newsgroup for Usenet.

The link you posted uses file:// which is for local files, i.e., it
references your C:\ drive. That's a device naming used by DOS and Windows.
None of us have access to that drive. Then, it goes to the cygwin C
compiler directory (?), goes to a directory named "gschuete" - which looks
like German or someone's initial and name (Yours perhaps?) the way corporate
IT departments format them..., then it accesses the "poopshooter" directory,
to finally load "POL.htm". If it's not a work machine, I'd have to question
why "personal" stuff is in a Cygwin directory...


Rod Pemberton

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
> I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
> might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> too.
> Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.

That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
computer, so we can't see it from the internet.

If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
with current technology) than Starting Forth.

[John Passaniti]

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:25:21 PM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> Well my bank account and 6 fig net worth says I have
> some great skills.

Maybe, but up until recently, those skills apparently didn't include learning Forth. And that's just *weird* because while Forth has an unusual syntax compared to other languages, it is a very traditional, very conservative, very procedural imperative language that other programmers can pick up the basics of in less than a day. When did you first start writing in this newsgroup again?

> Add that to my genius iq 154 and natural curiosity,
> not to mention artistic flaire, and you get the idea.

Yeah, I have a pretty good idea. I guess it's possible to be a genius who take *years* to learn new things. Maybe your problem is all that curiosity and art that fills your mind has pushed out the part of the brain that is required to understand the cartoons of Starting Forth.

> I mean Hek I went to school ranked ahead of some
> viy leagues but who cares?

One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius. You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the discussions they engage in. In other words, it's self-evident. Perhaps if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not as hot as you think you are. Just sayin'.

[quiet_lad]

Exactly, see the way I get to core problems and not worried about
minutiae shows this exactly. Spending time arguing about tiny
unimportant things is a sign of low iq.

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 26, 5:30 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
>
> > I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
> > might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
> > too.
> > Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.
>
> That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
> computer, so we can't see it from the internet.
>
> If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
> over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
> with current technology) than Starting Forth.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

IS FAT ok for pfe on openbsd?
and beginner<<

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 26, 5:17 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> "quiet_lad" <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote in message

http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm oops

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 27, 11:02 am, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:

What websites do you own John? curious

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/27/12 11:09 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:30 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 6/26/12 12:26 PM, quiet_lad wrote:
>>
>>> I am making progress with pfe on openbsd 5.1 i386.
>>> might read thinking forth and file:///C:/cygwin/home/gschuette/poopshooter/POL.htm
>>> too.
>>> Then on to Mrs. Rathers's 2 books I own copies of.
>>
>> That's good, although that link you gave us is to a local file on your
>> computer, so we can't see it from the internet.
>>
>> If you have Forth Application Techniques, I would recommend shifting
>> over to that. It is rather more thorough (as well as more consistent
>> with current technology) than Starting Forth.
>

> IS FAT ok for pfe on openbsd?
> and beginner<<
>

Yes, it's completely compatible except for the "Multitasking" chapter,
which is specific to FORTH, Inc. products. It also includes a few words
that are marked as "common usage" but are not in ANS Forth, which might
or might not be in pfe. Otherwise, it's generally compatible with ANS Forth.

Start at the very beginning, with the "Philosophy" discussion.

[Rod Pemberton]

"John Passaniti" <john.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cef41777-b7db-4b62...@googlegroups.com...

<OT>

> One observation I've had about people who can legitimately be called
> geniuses is that you don't need them to tell you they are a genius.
> You can tell from their work, their questions, and the quality of the
> discussions they engage in. In other words, it's self-evident. Perhaps
> if you have to tell people you're a genius and constantly try to prove
> your worth by citing your IQ and bank account, then maybe you're not
> as hot as you think you are. Just sayin'.

One observation I've had about people who *aren't* geniuses is that they
constantly question legimate geniuses because they can't comprehend whether
the ideas that geniuses present are brilliant or retarded. Frequently,
geniuses summarize their idea down to very simple statements or questions
regarding their idea(s), even though their thought process may have consumed
hundreds of pages if written, or may have thoroughly exercised their
prodigious memory, or may have involved higher mathematics. If they don't
summarize and simplify, no one in a typical group setting can follow their
idea or logic, except a few other geniuses who generally aren't involved in
large group settings, e.g., Usenet. Without presenting the entirety of the
"background" information developed by the genius, a genius frequently is
perceived as stupid or wierd or confused or lost. If the "background"
information is presented, it gets "ripped to shreds" by numerous average IQ,
detail oriented, individuals who will never comprehend the the idea. The
genius, recognizing his audience doesn't comprehend and will never, of
course, responds by limiting such information in the future in an attempt to
focus the conversation. If ideas are presented in person, people will look
at geniuses as being crazy, have open mouths, will be stumped or confused,
or be whispering swear words implying that they are truly stupid or have
just "stated the obvious" or will question whether the genius has any
"common sense", etc. So, geniuses must always and constantly try to prove
their worth to non-geniuses by various means, when confronted. When angry,
citing IQ is frequently a first choice because they already know how smart
they truly are. They just need you or others to recognize it... For
geniuses, citing IQ sounds arrogant, gets old after a while, and is
considered rude by certain social mores even if true, especially European
mores which thoroughly embrace the "STFU" philosophy towards geniuses.
So, while it may be self-evident to a bright person or another genius that a
genius truly is a genius, it clearly isn't to the vast majority of people.

Also, IQ is difficult to prove, in any setting. The best academic and
psychological tests don't fully quantify genius or the various types of
genius. Savants, including Autistics, frequently demonstrate genius level
IQ and abilities, but only in very limited and specific areas. Even so,
it's very clear to the rest of humanity that they have mental disabilities,
even without testing. Many standardized tests are purely language or
mathematics based. Other times such tests are weighted heavily or biased
towards memory and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not an ability
to think or solve problems. Commonly, they fail to test musical and visual
forms of intellect.


Rod Pemberton

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 26, 3:03 pm, Josh Grams <j...@qualdan.com> wrote:

java sucks
tcl rocks
lisp is nice
forth is a puzzle seems nice if I can figure it out and mega fast n
lean
php who cares not me
haskell is nice
scheme is nice
knowledge on subject? I am a linux architect if you know what that
is. Virtualization storage linux bsd I am very very skilled. I am
also an economist game author and book author, not to mention football
and basketball player, and hek even a poet.
So lets not try to pidgeon hole anyone ok?
I would love to see any for profit websites you have online mr
brainiac.

[Bernd Paysan]

Rod Pemberton wrote:Many standardized tests are purely language or

> mathematics based. Other times such tests are weighted heavily or
> biased towards memory and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not
> an ability
> to think or solve problems. Commonly, they fail to test musical and
> visual forms of intellect.

Most IQ tests simply test processing speed. They present you a number
of relatively simple problems, and you need to solve them in a limited
timeframe. This is a sort of "brain benchmark", none of the problems is
particularly hard. Problems are typically pattern matching in language,
numbers and geometrical problems. I haven't seen tests that are based
on memory or recollection, and these things would be highly dependent on
culture, something IQ tests strive to avoid.

I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric. But if
you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing speed
won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[John Passaniti]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:00:54 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> One observation I've had about people who *aren't* geniuses
> is that they constantly question legimate geniuses because
> they can't comprehend whether the ideas that geniuses

> present are brilliant or retarded. [...]

While I enjoy your latest demonstration of typing practice, the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius. Feel free to provide an example of an "idea" from gavino that the newsgroup collectively has deemed "retarded" which hints at some hidden stunning brilliance.

> Also, IQ is difficult to prove, in any setting. The best
> academic and psychological tests don't fully quantify

> genius or the various types of genius. [...]

True, but irrelevant. There are indeed various kinds of intelligence and so it follows there are various kinds of genius. But gavino doesn't claim to be a specific kind of genius. His claim is more generic and is in response to a familiar refrain about the quality of his messages. And that's not just here, but in other newsgroups as well.

[BruceMcF]

On Jun 27, 9:15 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Feel free to provide an example of an "idea" from gavino that the newsgroup
> collectively has deemed "retarded" which hints at some hidden stunning
> brilliance.

The only idea I've seen from gavino is, "I'm bored and I'd like to
read an article on topic X, let me ask a newsgroup whether they are
willing to write it for me on demand."

Whether that is genius or not, I wouldn't venture to guess.

[quiet_lad]

John go fuck your self.

[quiet_lad]

Hey Bruce what money making websites do you own?

[quiet_lad]

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

ok cool will do
thx

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 27, 6:54 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:

In a nutshell Bruce did I run over your dog or something?

[Rod Pemberton]

"John Passaniti" <john.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5...@googlegroups.com...
...

<OT>

> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.

Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?

Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the integrity of the
word "genius"?

What vested interest could you possibly have in his claim?

Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying, but can't or won't
call them a liar? And, just how do or would you know he is a liar? Maybe
he is, or he truly believes he is a genius.

What's the frame of reference? A guy of average intellect in a mental
institution could probably, legitimately, consider himself to be a genius.
A guy of slightly above average intellect in a prison ... Etc.

His claim matters to him. Getting others to accept the claim matters to
him. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. Maybe he's insane. Maybe he just needs
some attention. Who really cares?

Even if someone here _could_ prove they're as brilliant as Albert Einstein,
no one here would believe it... I'm not going to believe it. You're
definately not... So, what's the point in attempting to have him justify
his claim?

You have the choice of unconditionally accepting his claim, or
unconditionally rejecting it, or conditionally accepting it, or
conditionally rejecting it. Proof is not required for your personal
decision or judgement. Proof may change your decision, if it was
conditional. But, once you've made your decision, is there any further
need to discuss his claim with him?


Rod Pemberton

[quiet_lad]

[Rod Pemberton]

"Bernd Paysan" <bernd....@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:jsg615$6cn$1...@online.de...
> Rod Pemberton wrote:
...

<OT>

> > [...]

> > Many standardized tests are purely language or mathematics based.
> > Other times such tests are weighted heavily or biased towards memory
> > and recollection, e.g., names and dates, and not an ability to think or
> > solve problems. Commonly, they fail to test musical and visual forms
> > of intellect.
>
> Most IQ tests simply test processing speed. They present you a number
> of relatively simple problems, and you need to solve them in a limited
> timeframe. This is a sort of "brain benchmark", none of the problems is
> particularly hard. Problems are typically pattern matching in language,
> numbers and geometrical problems. I haven't seen tests that are based
> on memory or recollection, and these things would be highly dependent on
> culture, something IQ tests strive to avoid.
>
> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric. But if
> you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing speed
> won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
>

I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all. It seems
completely worthless to me.

Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems be
devalued? Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly and solve
difficult problems. There are also plenty of people who can think quickly,
but can't solve difficult problems at all. So, why should an uncapable
quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable slow thinker?
I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a problem seems to have no
correlation with the _ability_ of one to solve problems.


Rod Pemberton

[quiet_lad]

John you live in a negative world and are a real annoying wak job.

[Mark Wills]

On Jun 28, 9:17 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote in message

> Rod Pemberton- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree with your point Rod, however, Mensa doesn't agree. All tests
are timed.

[marko]

My guess would be flash-backs to 2006

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/fdb1917d6ee1c8cb

6 years later and we are possibly making a start on forth. Every group is
the same, bodybuilding groups consider gavin scheutte a troll, even the
geodesic dome group from 1997 thought the same. I can't find a positive
reference to gav_comedy or any of the aliases.

Links available if you want them, this is serial behaviour.

I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
been legendary, with little payoff.

Ball is *still* in your court gavino. I'm not convince you "get it" at all.

[Alex McDonald]

Yeh well im a millionair with this one website, mr gavino. www.facebook.com.
it's written in forth on a virutalized storage linux card. So lets not
try to put a pidgen in the pie. That is a poem btw.

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/27/12 10:14 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "John Passaniti" <john.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5...@googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> <OT>
>
>> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
>
> Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
>

Exactly.

Guys, knock it off. All of you are way off topic. We told gavino to
buckle down and take steps to learn Forth, and he is doing that, and IMO
we should provide support not harassment.

[John Passaniti]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:59:08 AM UTC-4, quiet_lad wrote:
> John go fuck your self.

I wish. Maybe more yoga.

[John Passaniti]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:14:20 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?

Why do you assume it does? I find his claims intensely amusing an inconsistent with observable reality. But just like my decision now to waste time and respond to you while I recover from my lunchtime food coma, I have no emotional or other investment in gavino and his claims.

> Are you part of some group that attempts to protect the
> integrity of the word "genius"?

No, I am part of the group of replies to messages that interest or amuse me.

> Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying,
> but can't or won't call them a liar? And, just how do or
> would you know he is a liar? Maybe he is, or he truly
> believes he is a genius.

Wow, this is fun! Come up with a false premise, then ask me to defend myself against that false premise. I'll answer as soon as you tell me-- yes or no-- if you've stopped beating your wife.

[John Passaniti]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> Guys, knock it off. All of you are way off topic. We
> told gavino to buckle down and take steps to learn
> Forth, and he is doing that, and IMO we should provide
> support not harassment.

We can do both. When he shows effort, we can applaud him. When he runs into problems, we can help him. When he desires to know more, we can point him in the right direction. And when he veers into goofyland, we can respond accordingly.

[Alex McDonald]

On Jun 28, 7:39 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/12 10:14 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>

> > "John Passaniti" <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >news:95d8b294-b341-4ff5...@googlegroups.com...
> > ...
>
> > <OT>
>
> >> [...] the claim here (from gavino) is that he is a genius.
>
> > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
>
> Exactly.
>
> Guys, knock it off. All of you are way off topic. We told gavino to
> buckle down and take steps to learn Forth, and he is doing that, and IMO
> we should provide support not harassment.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
>
> --
> ==================================================
> Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
> FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
> 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700

> Los Angeles, CA 90045http://www.forth.com

>
> "Forth-based products and Services for real-time
> applications since 1973."
> ==================================================

Elizabeth, gavino is not taking steps to learn Forth; here's the same
MO from 6 years ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_frm/thread/6f533f7bef651459/eacd2587fdd99f32

[Rod Pemberton]

"John Passaniti" <john.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7dafc4c9-5a6d-412f...@googlegroups.com...

> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:14:20 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:

...

> > Why does _his_ claim matter to _you_ ... ?
>
> Why do you assume it does?
>

You responded to him encouraging him to prove his genius.

> I find his claims intensely amusing [and] inconsistent with
> observable reality.

Yes, I agree it's "inconsistent with [your] observable reality".

> > Are you offended by people whom you perceive to be lying,
> > but can't or won't call them a liar? And, just how do or
> > would you know he is a liar? Maybe he is, or he truly
> > believes he is a genius.
>
> Wow, this is fun! Come up with a false premise, then ask me
> to defend myself against that false premise. I'll answer as soon
> as you tell me-- yes or no-- if you've stopped beating your wife.

The premise goes to determining the nature of _why_ his claims
matters to you. You didn't state. It was a pre-emptive response.

The issue is why you claim my premise is false. I only asked if you
though he was a liar, but didn't state so. In what way is that false?


Rod Pemberton

[Bernd Paysan]

Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> I don't think brain processing speed is an all-too-wrong metric. But
>> if you have some attention deficite or memory loss, fast processing
>> speed won't help you to gain knowledge or wisdom.
>
> I don't see why "brain processing speed" is a valid metric at all. It
> seems completely worthless to me.

Our brains are much too similar architected that speed wouldn't matter.
It's like a CPU: If you have two CPUs of the same design, the one with
the faster processing speed will win in a competition on the same task.
Whatever that task is. If you had two CPUs of wildly different design,
clock speed comparison is much less meaningful (e.g. simple in-order ARM
vs. complex OoOE x86).

> Why should someone who thinks slowly, but can solve difficult problems
> be devalued? Yes, there are plenty of people who can think quickly
> and solve difficult problems. There are also plenty of people who can
> think quickly, but can't solve difficult problems at all.

Actually, I haven't seen these sort of people, they are not plenty.
There are people who think quickly and can solve complex problems, and
there are thick and slow thinkers, who can't even solve simple problems,
but they get angry if you are a lot quicker than them, because it
reduces their already low self-esteem.

People with attention disorder have many difficulties, while they don't
have problems with the IQ tests. These conditions are orthogonal to IQ
measurements, and in fact, they shouldn't be. An attention disorder
impacts your capability of solving hard problems, but it doesn't affect
your capability for simple problems, because there, their limited
attention span is sufficient to solve the problem.

> So, why should an
> uncapable quick thinker be considered to be smarter than a capable
> slow thinker? I.e., the time consumed by an individual to solve a
> problem seems to have no correlation with the _ability_ of one to
> solve problems.

Average people tend to think that highly intelligent people must have
other deficits or so, as if the gods spread their gifts equal (they
don't, the Bible tells you "For unto every one that hath shall be given,
and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken
away even that which he hath." Matthew 25:29). There are people which
have odd brains (savants), that can do some things extremely good and
other things very bad, but in general, intelligent people are just
people with a more efficient brain - faster, less power consumption, and
they typically are better in every aspect you can test. It has been
found out that more stupid people in general face earlier dementia,
which seems to coincide with Matthew 25:29. Or maybe it just is
diagnosed earlier, because intelligent people can hide the symptoms for
longer. Who knows. Highly intelligent people usually have their
attention disorder diagnosed late, too, because its impact is much less
than on stupid people - if you are a thick and slow thinker, *and* you
have a short attention span, you are completely fucked up.

Life is unfair. And speed does matter. It's not the only thing that
matters. But if you discuss about a metric like IQ, you should stick to
what is actually measured, and not redefine the way of obtaining the
value.

IQ is the single number that results of doing a standardized MESA test.
As all single numbers resulting from some standard tests, they don't
reflect everything, but they correlate significantly. And this number
is only by 50% influenced from your genes, the other 50% are your own
achievement - you *can* train your brain to become more efficient (it
will become more efficient on whatever you train it to - if you train IQ
tests, your IQ will rise without much effect on other problem solving
skills). And you also can ruin your brain (called "burn out syndrome").

[BruceMcF]

Your measure of whether someone is a genius is whether they own any
money making websites?

Clearly if you are a genius, its not in the field of business, since a
genius in the field of business would be aware that owning a money
making website is not a mark of business genius.

[BruceMcF]

On Jun 28, 4:05 am, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell Bruce did I run over your dog or something?

No, nothing personal, gavino. I'm sure that you were not aimlessly
trolling clf for years as a personal attack on anybody. And I am sure
that you did not adopt the childish attention grabbing tactic of
posting absurdly long subject lines for your posts as a personal
assault either.

[John Passaniti]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:04:11 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> You responded to him encouraging him to prove his genius.

Yes, as have others. It kind of naturally flows from when someone claims they are some flavor of genius, but who have not demonstrated anything to support that claim.

> Yes, I agree it's "inconsistent with [your] observable reality".

Again, does that imply you sense something I don't here? Can you point to any aspect about anything gavino has written-- past or present-- that suggests to you brilliance. If you can, I'd love to see it. If you can't, then it appears it is also inconsistent with [your] observable reality. Welcome to the club.

> The premise goes to determining the nature of _why_

> his claims matters to you. [...]

False premise. They don't matter. I comment on many things that don't matter to me. I comment on you, for example. And I do this because it amuses me.

> The issue is why you claim my premise is false.

Primarily because it comes from the faulty assumption that merely responding to someone implies that someone "matters." It may be the case that you suffer from only responding to others that in some sense matter to you. But you are invited to not assume you are the template for humanity. Oh god, please don't let you be the template for humanity.

> I only asked if you though he was a liar, but didn't
> state so.

I have no evidence that gavino is telling the truth. If he suddenly starts writing messages that indicate or even suggest some kind of genius, I am more than happy to accept that he is.

[quiet_lad]

On Jun 28, 4:08 am, marko <ma...@marko.marko> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton wrote:

> > "John Passaniti" <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/browse_thread/thread/f...

>
> 6 years later and we are possibly making a start on forth.  Every group is
> the same, bodybuilding groups consider gavin scheutte a troll, even the
> geodesic dome group from 1997 thought the same.  I can't find a positive
> reference to gav_comedy or any of the aliases.
>
> Links available if you want them, this is serial behaviour.
>
> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
> been legendary, with little payoff.
>
> Ball is *still* in your court gavino.  I'm not convince you "get it" at all.

What are you babbling about?

[quiet_lad]

> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_frm/thread/6f5...

alex have a beer, relax

[quiet_lad]

john have a beer.

[quiet_lad]

I am impressed that you learned forth on your own in another country
from where it was invented and made your own chip, even if they chip
doesn't provide a ncie web browsing experience in 1% the resources of
a pentium.
or does it?

[quiet_lad]

My inner child finds you no fun atoll.
:)

I hope you make lots of money with forth.

[quiet_lad]

ya man, I see you with a lot of chix

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

On 6/29/12 11:04 AM, quiet_lad wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:08 am, marko <ma...@marko.marko> wrote:

...

>> I'm all for anyone learning forth and the patience from most people here has
>> been legendary, with little payoff.
>>
>> Ball is *still* in your court gavino. I'm not convince you "get it" at all.
>
> What are you babbling about?
>

He means he's looking forward to seeing that you are actually working
through one of the books on Forth and learning how to use it
effectively. So am I.

[Bernd Paysan]

quiet_lad wrote:
> I am impressed that you learned forth on your own in another country
> from where it was invented

I actually did read Starting Forth, and there was even a German
translation. Back then, Starting Forth was not even outdated.

> and made your own chip, even if they chip
> doesn't provide a ncie web browsing experience in 1% the resources of
> a pentium.
> or does it?

There are other things you can do with a chip than web browsing.

[quiet_lad]

grandpa said it best "if your so smart, why aint ya rich?"

[Hugh Aguilar]

I have yet to see Gavino, Passaniti or Elizabeth Rather post a single
Forth function on comp.lang.forth --- but I'm betting on Gavino to be
the first --- go, Gavino, go!

All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent; to
distinguish between morons and idiots and so forth. They didn't want
to say, "Well, my neighbor's kid is dumb as a box of rocks, so lets
kill him." They wanted to be scientific. By assigning everybody a
number, they could achieve their goal without accusations of
subjectivity (the neighbor's kid beat up their kid and they want
revenge). The I.Q. tests were never intended to quantify genius, or
even reasonable levels of intelligence --- anything over 100 is good,
but I wouldn't assign any more meaning to it than that. I refuse to
take I.Q. tests because doing so is a tacit approval of eugenics,
which I am opposed to.

Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
Is the following statement true or false?
"The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
intelligence."

[marko]

Including the ones with more than the average number of legs or not?

[quiet_lad]

average assumes 50%, thus you can't get a majority, by definition!

here are some forth functions!!

: hugh ." hugh is an interesting guy" ;
: question ." Right or wrong:" ;
: askhugh question hugh ;


WOAA

[Andrew Haley]

quiet_lad <gavc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> average assumes 50%, thus you can't get a majority, by definition!

What is the average of 99, 99, 99, 99, and 150 ? What proportion of
that population is below average?

Andrew.

[Anton Ertl]

Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>What is the average of 99, 99, 99, 99, and 150 ? What proportion of
>that population is below average?

Depends on which kind of average you mean. The median of these values
is 99, and 0% of this population is below this average.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 5, 9:05 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:

Like most intelligence tests, mine was unfair in that it tests
education rather than raw intelligence. I would really expect anybody
with an 8th-grade education to know the definition of "average" though
(there is only one definition). I give people this intelligence test
all of the time, and very few pass. Most of the people in the world
are what I call a "solid-90" --- they are not tards riding the short
bus and licking the windows, and they are proud of this fact, but all
of their accomplishments involve learning something by rote --- they
never really *think* at all. There are limits to how low intelligence
can go (below 70 and the person is a drooling imbecile, usually with
other health problems that will kill him during childhood). There are
no limits to how high intelligence can go however. If you graphed the
distribution, you would find a hump at about 90, with a sharp drop on
the left side and a long tail on the right side. There is almost
nobody below 70, but quite a few above 130, and an occasional genius
way the heck out there at 160 (although, as I said, the numbers become
increasingly meaningless the higher they go as there is no way to test
genius). Ironically, taking an I.Q. test is one of the dumber things
that people do (for the above stated reasons) --- I am unimpressed by
Mensa who brag that they are smarter than everybody else, not
considering that many people (me) haven't taken their test and aren't
going to.

BTW, I had a boss once who told me: "All data is normally
distributed." He was definitely a solid-90 --- he had an MBA though,
which is why he was the boss. He eventually fired me, although I
lasted for over a year, which is pretty good by my standards. Staying
employed is all about playing dumb.

[A. K.]

On 05.07.2012 11:23, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."
>

As the majority of people is non-Belgian, I must reject this absolutely
discriminating question.

[Arnold Snarb]

Hugh Aguilar asked:

>
> All this talk about genius and I.Q. is nonsense. The I.Q. tests were
> invented by the eugenics folks to quantify the very unintelligent;

> [...]

> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).

OK, I'll bite.

> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence."

No. The preceding statement is neither true nor false.

Did I pass?


--Arnold

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 6, 9:35 am, Arnold Snarb <asn...@fdip.bad-monkeys.org> wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar asked:

> > Is the following statement true or false?
> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> > intelligence."
>
> No.  The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
>
> Did I pass?
>
> --Arnold

Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
possibilities. This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!

Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.

Here is a programming challenge easy enough that even Gavino should
succeed at it (although I doubt that John Passaniti or Elizabeth
Rather can do it). Write a program in ANS-Forth to read a seq file
containing one integer per line. Calculate the following: range of
data, average of data, median of data, and how many data are above and
below the average.

For extra credit, generate a PostScript file that displays a bar-graph
of the distribution of data with the mean and median marked.

Everybody please wait a week or two with your answer, in order to give
Gavino time to write his program --- this challenge is mostly for his
benefit --- it is okay to give him hints (my own hint is to use the
novice package's lists), but let him write his own code before you
show him your code.

[jfong]

> Hugh Aguilar wrote at 05JUL2012:
> Here is a quick intelligence test for the comp.lang.forth crowd (I
> don't expect any of you to pass the test, as all of you are dumb as a
> box of rocks, but I'll give you the test anyway).
> Is the following statement true or false?
> "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> intelligence.

True. According to bell curve, an average person just means an idiot.

[Hugh Aguilar]

It is not a bell curve (normal distribution). It is steep on the left
side and gradual on the right side.

[jfong]

Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature. In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.

[Howerd]

Hi Hugh,

The answer depends on the distribution of the "intelligence" over the
population.
So it is impossible to give an answer without more information.

Take these populations of three people with IQ's :
IQ1 IQ2 IQ3 Average Number<Av Answer
a) 99 100 101 100 1 No
b) 100 100 101 100.33... 2 Yes
c) 99 100 100 99.66... 1 No

I am curious to know three things :
1) Why do you think that this test is an "intelligence test"?
2) What answer do you give?
3) Why do you think that the good folks of comp.lang.forth lack
intelligence?

I think I may have already failed my own intelligence test by replying
to this post.
But Andy Murray has made it to the Wimbledon Final, so who cares :-)

Best regards,
Howerd

[Alex McDonald]

Statistically speaking?

> But Andy Murray has made it to the Wimbledon Final, so who cares :-)

And the British Grand Prix is on at the same time. Who organised
that???

>
> Best regards,
> Howerd

[Howerd]

Hi Alex,

> And the British Grand Prix is on at the same time. Who organised
> that???

Probably the same b***** that decided that I can't watch the BBC in
Germany (at least without paying some internet site of dubious
legality).
:-(

Best regards,
Howerd

[Bernd Paysan]

jfong wrote:
> Yea, you are right. I forget the bell curve can only happen in nature.
> In a democracy society, those powerful "elected" idiots has more
> weight to influence the curve in a way to enhance their advantage.

Actually, as "average" is defined as 100 in IQ tests, and the tests are
also normed for bell curve results and standard deviation of 15 or 16
points (norming differs slightly here, 16 points means that 0/200 is 6
sigma), the majority of the people on earth have an above-average IQ
(i.e. >100), due to the Flynn effect (IQ rises, worldwide, over
generations). Only when the tests are normed, the average IQ divides
the population into two pretty equal halves (statistically speaking).

However, the "population" is systematically distorted, by not testing
severely demented patients; and for children, the IQ is relative to
other children of the same age, not to the general population. Given
this distortion, the majority of the population has a below-100 IQ (not
age-adjusted). When you take this unadjusted IQ curve, it looks like
what Hugh describes: not a bell curve, but something bent to the left.
It's not because there are many idiots out there, it's because there are
many children out there.

I've only done two sort-of IQ tests, one was as young child - the tester
said "he's pretty advanced for three and a half" - to which my mother
responded "he's two and a half". The other was part of the check for
military services, and I did score 100%. Whatever that means in terms
of IQ I have no idea ("result out of bound error"), but the tester
explained us the Flynn effect: The year before, only 5 persons scored
100% (and I have no idea if that was in Munich, or all over German).
The year I took the test, I was number 42 to score 100%, and it was
quite late in that year. The "number 42" makes it easy for me to
remember that thing. I later met a guy who scored 100% the next year,
and he remembered to have a three-digit number of scoring 100%.

[Mark Wills]

The number 42 is relevant, as any reader familiar with Douglas Adams
will attest.

[Arnold Snarb]

Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> Arnold Snarb wrote:
>> Hugh Aguilar asked:
>> > Is the following statement true or false?
>> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
>> > intelligence."
>>
>> No.  The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
>>
>> Did I pass?
>

> Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
> possibilities.

There's a third possibility: the statement is meaningless.

> This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
> only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
> success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
> impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!
>
> Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
> mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.

What is the average color of all the socks in your sock drawer?
Is it larger or smaller than the average color of socks in the
general population?

Now the Stanford-Binet IQ test is reportedly designed to have a
normal distribution, so I'd say that only about half the people
on Earth have a below-average IQ. But you didn't ask about IQ --
you asked about "intelligence".

I stand by my original answer.


--Arnold

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 9, 10:42 am, Arnold Snarb <asn...@fdip.bad-monkeys.org> wrote:
> Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > Arnold Snarb wrote:
> >> Hugh Aguilar asked:
> >> > Is the following statement true or false?
> >> > "The majority of the people on Earth have a below-average
> >> > intelligence."
>
> >> No.  The preceding statement is neither true nor false.
>
> >> Did I pass?
>
> > Nope. They either do or they don't. True and false are the only
> > possibilities.
>
> There's a third possibility: the statement is meaningless.
>
> > This is not a difficult intelligence test; there are
> > only two possible answers, so guessing provides a good chance of
> > success --- but your answer has no chance of success because it is
> > impossible! Good job --- way to establish a baseline on intelligence!
>
> > Maybe it would help if you guys knew that the word "average" means the
> > mean --- the sum of the data values divided by the number of data.
>
> What is the average color of all the socks in your sock drawer?
> Is it larger or smaller than the average color of socks in the
> general population?

Well, a good argument can be made that "intelligence" is undefined.
This is what I was saying earlier, but only in regard to smart people.
I said that anything over 100 is good, but that I wouldn't give any
more meaning to it than that. There are a lot of ways to be smart
(your analogy with socks would have worked better if people had socks
other than white --- you should have said shirts instead), and no test
can reduce this to a number. I can't imagine an intelligence test
asking: "Did you invent the Forth language?" --- only one person on
the planet would answer that question correctly! On the other hand,
there is pretty much only one way to be dumb, and this can be tested
for. This is why I said previously that the I.Q. test was primarily
designed to quantify dumbness, and was never intended to test
intelligence. Nobody has ever said that a high I.Q. qualifies a person
for anything. The purpose of the test, was that a low I.Q. could
*disqualify* a person for various things. For example, the military
doesn't want morons on the battlefield because that is considered
unethical (McNamara tried this during the Vietnam War and was strongly
criticized, and the whole plan fell apart).

> Now the Stanford-Binet IQ test is reportedly designed to have a
> normal distribution, so I'd say that only about half the people
> on Earth have a below-average IQ.  But you didn't ask about IQ --
> you asked about "intelligence".

It is utter foolishness to "design" a test for a normal distribution.
The data is either normally distributed, or it conforms to some other
distribution. The data is what the data is --- the test must conform
to the data, not the data to the test. In the case of intelligence,
the data is obviously not normally distributed --- it has a steep
slope on the left side and a gradual slope on the right side. I know
that this is true just by thinking about the subject (my standard
procedure for all questions is to think about the subject inside my
head, and whatever I decide is true is the Truth, and nevermind what
the rest of the world says). This is why I said that taking an I.Q.
test is one of the dumber things that people do --- the only people
who do this are those who have already failed my intelligence test
(the true/false question I asked earlier) --- this Stanford-Binet I.Q.
test isn't very useful if it only samples people who are dumb as a box
of rocks (that is my term for people who fail my test).

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 7, 11:59 pm, Howerd <howe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I am curious to know three things :

> 3) Why do you think that the good folks of comp.lang.forth lack
> intelligence?

Because they failed to design a standard for Forth that made any
sense, and the Forth language failed as a result.

Anton Ertl is like Dora the Explorer with Gforth. He has a screwball C
implementation, and it is just getting more and more complicated. He
doesn't know how words like semicolon and IF and such can be written
in Forth, so he writes them in C and then says that they don't have xt
values. Then he bodges the ANS-Forth standard so that it states that
these words aren't required to have xt values. The standard is
following Gforth, rather than the other way around. And he has various
words with dual xt values --- which xt gets returned by FIND depends
upon the context that FIND is called in. !!! Remember what I said
earlier about my standard procedure being to think about a subject
inside of my head and find the truth? This is what Anton Ertl never
did. This is why I compare him to Dora the Explorer --- rather than
develop a plan (and rewrite Gforth in assembly-language), he just
keeps muddling around with his screwball C implementation. If he
discovers a weird hack that keeps the system running, then he bodges
the standard to make it legal, and nevermind if it makes no sense to
observers like me --- the "good folks" of comp.lang.forth will just
say that my software "sucks" and that will settle the issue.

I have given up on ANS-Forth and Forth-200x. I am developing my own
standard, which I will call Straight Forth. Every word has exactly one
xt value. There are TARG, HOST and SYSTEM modes. A lot of the words
are represented in all three modes. You use [T'] [H'] or [S'] to get
the appropriate xt value. Also, if you don't know where an xt value
came from, you can test it to find out. The xt values are
"reflective" (to use the computer-sciency term) --- you can find out
lots of things about a word given its xt value. The implementation of
a cross-compiler is somewhat complicated internally, but it can be
described very simply --- the standards document will be much simpler
than the ANS-Forth document (and I won't use the word "may" as a
crutch the way that the ANS-Forth document does).

P.S. for Mark Willis: This is my first-ever use of the Englishism
"bodge" --- did I use it correctly?

[Mark Wills]

Yeah, it was spot on. I noticed it straight away, and it raised a
smile.

When you bodge something, you're 'putting a sticking plaster' over the
problem and walking away. It's fixed as far as you're concerned. Back
in the 70's here in the UK, our fathers would spend all weekend
bodging their British Leyland cars (utter peices of rusting shit,
produced under massivly unionised soviet style work ethics, on
perpetually bodged production lines, bodged by communists from the
Black Country (an area in the Midlands in England) that would strike
at the drop of a hat) with PolyFiller (Bondo in the USA I think it's
called). I have a full technicolor recall of the crack of my dad's
arse (butt), because the poor sod was bent over the bonnet (hood) of
his Austin 1300 every weekend, in the hope that it could be bodged for
another week. His toolbox was permanently stored in the boot (trunk)
of the car.

"Dad, can we go and play football now?"
"Soon son. Pass me that feeler gauge."

Thank God the Japanese invaded with their Datsuns.

[Mark Wills]

On Jul 10, 7:58 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh, and it's Wills, not Willis ;-)

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 10, 1:22 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Oh, and it's Wills, not Willis ;-)

You've been on c.l.f. since 2009, and I never noticed that. Well, the
blind see what they want to see. I'll get it right in the future.

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/10/2012 09:58 AM, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> I have given up on ANS-Forth and Forth-200x. I am developing my own
> standard, which I will call Straight Forth.

We're looking forward to seeing the implementation one fine day.

[Hugh Aguilar]

Why? So that you can say that it "sucks" or call me a "donkey" again?

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 10, 1:22 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Jul 10, 7:58 am, Hugh Aguilar <hughaguila...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The implementation of
> > a cross-compiler is somewhat complicated internally, but it can be
> > described very simply --- the standards document will be much simpler
> > than the ANS-Forth document (and I won't use the word "may" as a
> > crutch the way that the ANS-Forth document does).
>
> > P.S. for Mark Willis: This is my first-ever use of the Englishism
> > "bodge" --- did I use it correctly?
>
> Yeah, it was spot on. I noticed it straight away, and it raised a
> smile.
>
> When you bodge something, you're 'putting a sticking plaster' over the
> problem and walking away. It's fixed as far as you're concerned.

Yeah, that is why I never use a wooden ladder that has been painted
--- the paint could be hiding huge cracks and/or rotten wood --- the
only way to find out if the ladder can hold my weight, is by climbing
it.

ANS-Forth was a huge failure. The document uses the word "may"
throughout. They are just trying to please everybody. For example,
locals may be on the return stack, or they may not. Floats may be on
the parameter stack, or they may not. It is too ambiguous --- a
standard is supposed to standardize --- they needed to make decisions,
rather than leave everything up in the air. Also, they are
standardizing bugs. When Gforth crashes when ticking semicolon, that
is a bug --- but wait! --- the standard says that semicolon doesn't
have to have an xt value. Baloney! The standard was just bodged to
make Gforth's bugs legal; this is like painting over the cracks in a
broken ladder to make it look new. The standard is following a
particular implementation, rather than the implementations following
the standard. And Gforth is the worst possible implementation to
follow, as it is slow as molasses in January --- it is so slow that it
makes SwiftForth seem fast by comparison (SwiftForth is slow as
molasses in April).

If anybody criticizes ANS-Forth, Elizabeth Rather's standard response
is to accuse that person of wanting to return to the horror of
Forth-83. Specifically, she is referring to the fact that Forth-83
didn't abstractify the cell size. A lot of people used 2+ and so forth
throughout their application programs assuming a 16-bit system, which
made it very difficult to port the program to a 32-bit system. I
didn't do that though. I defined W+ that was 2+ on 16-bit systems and
4+ on 32-bit systems. Porting from one size computer to another was as
easy as changing W+ and a few other similar words. It is called
"information hiding" --- any programmer with a 3-digit I.Q. should be
able to figure this out on his own. When I went to Testra, they were
already doing essentially the same thing. Pretty much everybody was on
top of the problem. But Elizabeth Rather wants to take credit for this
idea, implying that all of the Forth-83 programmers were too dumb to
figure it out themselves and needed to be saved by her wonderful
leadership. Baloney!

I remember in the late 1980s that Forth was still taken seriously.
Given some leadership, Forth could have become the standard language
for micro-controllers, with C being forgotten about (C was very much
associated with Unix in those days, and it was quite a stretch to
imagine that it would make the jump to micro-controllers). ANS-Forth
took too long to come out though. By 1994, it was almost too late to
save Forth. Then, when ANS-Forth did come out, it was just an
amateurish mess. That was it for Forth --- nobody ever took Forth
seriously again.

[Mark Wills]

Well, I have to say I agree re the standard. I've not read everything
in standard, but I've seen enough to conclude that it is not strong
enough. It should mandate much more than it currently does. As you
point out, the use of "may" is too frequent. I can kind of see their
point; they want to avoid being too restrictive and give some freedom
to implementors. That's okay. But one is left with the feeling that
concessions were more to accomodate pre-existing systems (thus
rendering them de-facto compliant) than to give freedom of
implementation. The problem is that with too loose a specification,
'compliant' programs have no gurantee of running on a 'compliant'
system, as common practice confirms. We often see here on CLF "Works
on VFX, fails on GForth" or vice-versa (for example). This is a
symptom of the loose specification, either in the choices that it
gives to implementor, or in the ambiguous wording of the
specification, where one implementor takes a different view from the
wording than another implementor.

That said, I do think it's a very difficult balancing act. For
example, if we mandated that all locals go on a dedicated local stack,
we would (presumably) be met with howls of derision from embedded
implementors: "My system keeps the top two items from the data and
return stack in registers. I don't have spare registers to do the same
with a locals stack" etc etc.

One probably needs very thick skin when sitting on a standards
committee!

[Howerd]

Hi Hugh,

> > 3) Why do you think that the good folks of comp.lang.forth lack
> > intelligence?
>
> Because they failed to design a standard for Forth that made any

> sense,...
I've never been involved in designing a Forth standard, so I reckon
that lets me off the hook, intelligence wise :-)

> ... and the Forth language failed as a result.
I don't agree that the Forth language has failed - it works very well
for me - it just doesn't fit in to most company cultures...
Any company must strike a balance between the needs of the
shareholders to make a profit, and the needs of the employees to have
a comfortable working environment.
The last thing a company wants is maverick programmers "doing their
own thing". C/C++/C# are much more appropriate, because they prevent
intelligent programmers from doing too much damage ( not including C++
templates. of course ;-)

> I have given up on ANS-Forth and Forth-200x. I am developing my own
> standard, which I will call Straight Forth

I look forward to seeing Straight Forth, and I will never say that
your code "sucks", because I am English, and much too polite :-)

> Anton Ertl is like Dora the Explorer with Gforth.

Is this a compliment or an insult? gForth is an ANS Forth implemented
in a particular environment.
I consider Anton to be very intelligent, and I always pay attention to
his posts.
I think it is best to avoid emotive words such as "screwball", "weird"
and "bodges" (and also "sucks") because it makes it very difficult to
discuss the real issues.

And, yes, I can confirm that you used the word "bodge" correctly...

Best regards,
Howerd

[Bernd Paysan]

Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> Anton Ertl is like Dora the Explorer with Gforth. He has a screwball C
> implementation, and it is just getting more and more complicated. He
> doesn't know how words like semicolon and IF and such can be written
> in Forth, so he writes them in C

Which shows how much of a moron you are - you can't even check your
assertions. Gforth's IF and ; are written in Forth. Words like ?BRANCH
and ;S (the primitive of EXIT) are written in C, because C is used as
portable assembler in Gforth.

[Ron Aaron]

On 07/10/2012 11:58 AM, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> Why? So that you can say that it "sucks" or call me a "donkey" again?

Only if the (horse)shoe fits.

[Anton Ertl]

Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> writes:
>Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> Anton Ertl is like Dora the Explorer with Gforth. He has a screwball C
>> implementation, and it is just getting more and more complicated. He
>> doesn't know how words like semicolon and IF and such can be written
>> in Forth, so he writes them in C
>
>Which shows how much of a moron you are - you can't even check your
>assertions. Gforth's IF and ; are written in Forth. Words like ?BRANCH
>and ;S (the primitive of EXIT) are written in C, because C is used as
>portable assembler in Gforth.

And you can tick ;S and ?BRANCH. Getting an error when ticking IF and
EXIT has nothing to do with the implementation languages involved.

BTW, the source code for ;S and ?BRANCH is:

;s ( R:w -- ) gforth semis
""The primitive compiled by @code{EXIT}.""
#ifdef NO_IP
INST_TAIL;
goto *(void *)w;
#else
SET_IP((Xt *)w);
#endif

condbranch(?branch,f --,f83 question_branch,
,if (f==0) {
,:
0= dup 0= \ !f f
r> tuck cell+ \ !f branchoffset f IP+
and -rot @ and or \ f&IP+|!f&branch
>r ;)

There's some m4 in this, some Vmgen, some C, and some Forth.

[Andrew Haley]

Mark Wills <markrob...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[ Re ANS Forth ]

> I can kind of see their point; they want to avoid being too
> restrictive and give some freedom to implementors. That's okay. But
> one is left with the feeling that concessions were more to
> accomodate pre-existing systems (thus rendering them de-facto
> compliant) than to give freedom of implementation.

It was a bit of both. When on a language standardization project,
it's really important to remember that the committee's job is not to
design a new language but to standardize good practice.

> The problem is that with too loose a specification, 'compliant'
> programs have no gurantee of running on a 'compliant' system,

Yes they do, by definition: a Standard System is one that runs all
Standard Programs, subject to resource constraints. There will always
be some problems of interpretation of any specification written in
natural language.

> as common practice confirms. We often see here on CLF "Works on VFX,
> fails on GForth" or vice-versa (for example).

Just as we do with almost all other programming languages. If we
didn't see that the standard would certainly have failed. The only
way round it is a standard virtual machine: the Fig-FORTH model. This
is exactly what ANS was trying to avoid.

> One probably needs very thick skin when sitting on a standards
> committee!

Indeed.

Andrew.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <jtgp7s$g3u$1...@dont-email.me>,

Me too. Send me one the day it's ready, or even a preliminary
version!

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <fae52bec-4aff-420b...@p6g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Hugh Aguilar <hughag...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Right you are!

[Hugh Aguilar]

On Jul 10, 8:13 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:

> Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > as common practice confirms. We often see here on CLF "Works on VFX,
> > fails on GForth" or vice-versa (for example).
>
> Just as we do with almost all other programming languages.  If we
> didn't see that the standard would certainly have failed.  The only
> way round it is a standard virtual machine: the Fig-FORTH model.  This
> is exactly what ANS was trying to avoid.

That is just a straw-man. This is similar to what I said before about
how Elizabeth Rather says that anybody who criticizes ANS-Forth must
want to go back to Forth-83 that didn't abstractify the cell size. Now
you say that anybody who critcizes ANS-Forth must want to go back to
FIG-Forth that specified a threading model.

There is no need to standardize the virtual machine. Straight Forth
won't. All of that internal stuff can be hidden inside of COMPILE, ---
it just takes an xt and compiles it. How it compiles is completely
hidden. It may compile to an intermediate format all of which gets
recompiled into an executable format by semicolon. It may also compile
directly into machine code or threaded code or whatever.

[quiet_lad]

I'd say you are smart if you made your own forth and chip.