About "NOTHING is complex or difficul"
Amine
Hello all,
If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.
When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"
i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.
Now, if you have noticed , as soon as you take into account
the REALITY 'constraints' , the proof will begin to have problems.
As an example: suppose that the THING is a construction process
that make you tired , this means this thing is difficult, so, my
affirmation "nothing is complex or difficult" will become false.
So , as you see, in my reasonning process about such properties
as complex or difficult i have forgot to take into account the TWO
things:
the ABSTRACT(like Algorithm etc.) *AND* also the REALITY(like
hardware
etc.).
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello all,
If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.
When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"
i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.
Now from an abstract point of view, as soon as you understand
*COMPLETLY* an abstract representation (in the form of conscience),
you will have an OBJECTIVE view of it, and it will become the TRUTH
and as soon as you understand it COMPLETLY it will look SIMPLE
and EASY.
If a person don't undertand an abstract representation of a real
system
and he finally come to the conclusion that it is COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
Is it the TRUTH that it is complex and difficult ?
Of course NO.
Cause this abstract representation of a real system is just
a SUBJECTIVE view.
So it's not the TRUTH..
And the TRUTH lies in the COMPLETE understanding side.
And as soon as you understand the abstract representation completly
it will become SIMPLE and EASY , and this is THE TRUTH.
And the same reasonning is valid for every abstract representation.
Hence, we can finally state that:
EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
And this is valid for EVERY abstract representation inside our
conscience.
Hence we can say that
You have said complex ?
Is it just a false impression ?
Or is it the truth ?
Does the complex or difficul really exist ?
Even if we don't comprehend the things
*NOTHING* is complex or difficul.
To say something is complex or difficul is just a FALSE impression
Why ?
If you don't comprehend a thing
and
you have a false impression of it
and
another person has comprehend *COMPLETLY* the same thing
where now the truth lies ?
In the complete understanding side ?
or in the not complete understanding side ?
The truth is:
It is in the understanding side.
And
Since as soon as you COMPREHEND the thing *COMPLETLY*
The thing will become SIMPLE
and this final impression IS the REAL truth.
Hence, *NOTHING* is complex or difficul.
Amine
Amine
Hello,
I said:
"EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
Now if you ask what does my proof
and this affirmation means in reality?
It means for example that:
Every software that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
Every SYSTEM that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
If you have noticed:
With my proof you can state:
Something like this:
"Every SYSTEM that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it."
Now if you want to construct the system that's a different thing,
cause if you have noticed, my proof state that:
"EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
the representation does inform us on the reality of the THING:
the SYSTEM
The thing is in reality EASY and SIMPLE.
but
It's is not easy to CONSTRUCT cause this will violate the TRUTH
of the statement: that it's JUST a representation.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
A little mistake, please reread again:
I said:
"EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
Now if you ask what does my proof
and this affirmation means in reality?
It means for example that:
Every software that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
and
Every SYSTEM that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
Now if you want to CONSTRUCT the system that's a different thing,
cause if you have noticed, my proof state that:
"EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
the representation does inform us on the reality of the THING:
the SYSTEM
The thing is in reality EASY and SIMPLE.
but
We can not affirm categorically something about the CONSTRUCTION
process: that it's simple or not to construct. Cause the information
that
is contained in the statement is: "every ABSTRAT representation is
SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Vaclav Haisman
> [...]
Would you please stop this verbal diarrhoea and write single coherent post
instead of chains of self-reply?
--
VH
Amine
> Amine wrote, On 3.8.2009 2:31:> [...]
>
> Would you please stop this verbal diarrhoea
It's not verbal diarrhoea
Logic is mathematic, and i believe if your logic is right
=> you can generalize and you can extract really interresting
information from it.
>and write single coherent post
> instead of chains of self-reply?
I was still *thinking*...
So here it is i have corrected some mistakes...
Please reread this version:
Hello all,
If you have read carefully my proof inside the post
"nothing is complex or difficult", you will notice that
it does work correctly if you look at it from an abstract
point of view.
When i have said "nothing is complex or difficult"
i was speaking about ABSTRACT representions of things
inside our conscience.
Now from an abstract point of view, as soon as you understand
*COMPLETLY* an abstract representation (in the form of conscience),
you will have an OBJECTIVE view of it, and it will become the TRUTH
and as soon as you understand it COMPLETLY it will look SIMPLE
and EASY.
If a person don't undertand an abstract representation of a real
system and he finally come to the conclusion that it is COMPLEX
and DIFFICULT
Is it the TRUTH that it is complex and difficult ?
Of course NO.
Cause this abstract representation of a real system is just
a SUBJECTIVE view.
So it's not the TRUTH..
And the TRUTH lies in the COMPLETE understanding side.
And as soon as you understand the abstract representation COMPLETLY
it will become SIMPLE and EASY , and this will be: THE TRUTH.
And the same reasonning is valid for every abstract representation.
Hence, we can finally state that:
EVERY complete abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY.
Now if you ask what does my proof
and this affirmation means in reality?
It means for example that:
Every software that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
and
Every SYSTEM that you see with your eyes
and
Try to understand it
and
Have an abstract representation(a conscience) of it
Is in reality simple and easy EVEN if you don't understand it.
The complete representation does inform us on the reality of the
THING:
the SYSTEM . and that the THING is in reality EASY and SIMPLE.
Now if you want to CONSTRUCT the system that's a different thing,
cause my proof state that:
"Every complete *ABSTRACT* representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
if you have noticed the statemend does contain the term
*ABSTRACT*
and
It does NOT inform you on FUTURE events.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello,
Now if you have followed my reasonning(logic)
I stated that:
[1] "Every complete *ABSTRACT* representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
And this statement does also inform us on the REALITY of the THING.
So, imagine that the system is the complet UNIVERS
If you based your reasonning on the statement[1] above
You can finally say that:
The univers is in reality SIMPLE and EASY
EVEN if you don't understand it.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello,
I stated that:
[1] "Every complet *ABSTRACT* representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
'Conscience' of a thing is a set of ideas.
And since an idea belong to the ABSTRACT set (world)
=> the conscience IS an abstract thing
And based on my statement[1] we can also affirm that:
Since algorithms are abstract representations
and EVERY abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY
So , every Algorithm is SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Dave Butenhof
> On Aug 3, 1:51 am, Vaclav Haisman <v.hais...@sh.cvut.cz> wrote:
>> Amine wrote, On 3.8.2009 2:31:> [...]
>>
>> Would you please stop this verbal diarrhoea
>
> It's not verbal diarrhoea
>
> Logic is mathematic, and i believe if your logic is right
> => you can generalize and you can extract really interresting
> information from it.
Unfortunately, the problem we face is that from ANY chain of logic,
right or wrong, "interesting information" may be "extracted". Only when
the logic is right does that "interesting information" become useful to
anyone. (Sometimes not even then, but that's a different issue addressed
further down...)
>> and write single coherent post
>> instead of chains of self-reply?
>
> I was still *thinking*...
Next time, please do your thinking on your own time, and only "share"
the final result with other people. Then at least, even if the product
is incredibly stupid, you'll manage to annoy fewer people.
In fact, let's go further here, and suggest that abstract philosophy be
discussed in an appropriate forum rather than in a newsgroup dedicated
to a specific area of programming technology -- where your opinions on
this subject, right or wrong, are completely irrelevant and useless.
> So here it is i have corrected some mistakes...
You've wasted so much of everyone's time already, why would anyone be
motivated to waste more time reading yet another variant? (And why, for
that matter, would anyone even for an instant believe you've finally
fixed "the last mistake", that might possibly make it worth reading,
when even from your own point of view you've exposed us to a seemingly
endless progression of mistakes?)
If you actually have anything to say, you've long since lost your chance
to get anyone to care about it. Next time, be smarter about the process.
Amine
Dave Butenhof
> In fact, let's go further here, and suggest that abstract philosophy
Look my dear Dave Butenhof ,
David Shwartz has made the following affirmation:
" [...] Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right."
And this is FALSE.
I have reasoned about properties like: COMPLEX or DIFFICULT
And i think i have proved - by using abstract philosophy and 'logic'
-
that the TRUTH is:
"Every complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY."
And this statement does also inform us on the *REALITY* of the THINGS
and the REALITY of the ABSTRAT world.
It does inform us on the: TRUTH.
Do you understand ?
And it was the last time i discuss abstract philosophy here in this
forum.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramadne
Dave Butenhof
> And it was the last time i discuss abstract philosophy here in this
> forum.
Good. Glad to hear that. Thanks, and good bye.
Amine
I correct:
and EVERY *COMPLET* abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY
Chris M. Thomasson
news:h57d44$j9v$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
I know I have a bad habit of replying to my self as well. But, I am not
exactly sure if I was ever this bad... Humm...
;^o
Amine
Hello all,
As an example:
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
The complet abstract representation of it (in you conscience) will
become SIMPLE and EASY, right ?
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is the
derivative and he come to the conclusion that the derivative is
complex and diffcult
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the derivative: is it COMPLEX or
SIMPLE?
It is YOU that have the OBJECTIVE view and the complet abstract
representation of the derivative inside your conscience, it's YOU
that have the TRUTH about the derivative - cause you have
understandood it completly (the essence of the derivative)-
that it's SIMPLE and EASY.
Now another example:
Imagine that an intelligent super powerfull machine has
understood the UNIVERS as a system from inside out.
So, the complet abstract representation of the UNIVERS (inside the
conscience of the intelligent super powerful machine) will become
SIMPLE and EASY for this intelligent super powerfull machine, right ?
Let suppose that humans still don't understand what is the univers
as a system and they still affirm that the univers is COMPLEX and
DIFFICULT.
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
The intelligent super powerful machine or the humans ?
We want to find the *TRUTH* about the univers as a system:
is it COMPLEX or SIMPLE?
Of course that it is the intelligent super powerfull machine
that have the OBJECTIVE view and the complet abstract representation
of the univers, and it's the intelligent super powerful machine
that
have the *TRUTH* about the univers(it knows the essence of the
univers):
that it's SIMPLE and EASY.
So , even if humans find the univers complex and dificult,
we can state - by asking the intelligent super powerful machine -
that it's in reality SIMPLE and EASY.
Do you understand. ?
And please reread my other posts and you will understand.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Hallvard B Furuseth
This is why newsreaders have killfiles.
--
Hallvard
Dave Butenhof
Yes, Chris, but the difference goes way beyond that...
Your often annoyingly repetitive self-replies are always on subjects of
direct relevance to this newsgroup and which, if complete and accurate,
would be of great interest and value to many readers. We appreciate your
work and effort and (sometimes with more patience than others) tolerate
your quirky presentation.
Even SenderX was merely annoyingly, thick-headedly, and repetitively
debating some of the essential issues of modern concurrent programming.
Amine's posts have absolutely no relevance to this newsgroup and even if
complete and accurate would be of virtually no use or interest to anyone
here. He has done and said absolutely nothing that gives me any
inclination towards patience or tolerance. In the absolutely most
generous possible view, he's discussing abstract semantic philosophy.
(And that's REALLY generous.) Someone said "verbal diarrhea", and it's
really hard to think of a more suitable description. If he wants to
pursue this, he should find an appropriate place; that is NOT here.
Amine
As an example:
Before:
I didn't undestood *COMPLETLY* what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
it was just a SUBJECTIVE view that i had about the derivative
and i didn't have a complet representation of the derivative
inside my conscience and i was THINKING - it was just the first
IMPRESSIONS - that the derivative is COMPLEX and DIFFICULT.
But as soon as i have understood the derivative it has become
an OBJECTIVE view, and now i have a complete representation
of the derivative inside my conscience and i can say that i know
the real ESSENCE of the derivative.
So, if you ask me now a question like:
"Is the derivative COMPLEX and DIFFICULT ?"
Since i have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD and i know the *ESSENCE*
of the derivative i can affirm categoricaly that: IT'S SIMPLE AND
EASY.
Hence as soon as i have UNDERSTOOD the derivative , the properties
like COMPLEX and DIFFCULT have gone, and it has become SIMPLE
and EASY.
So, the ESSENCE of the DERIVATIVE,
the TRUTH about it , is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
EVEN if you have not understood it COMPLETLY.
Regards
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
>sometimes has to go through a DIFFICULT and/or COMPLEX process?
Since the intelligent super powerful machine understand COMPLETLY
the univers, the ESSENCE of the univers, it knows the *TRUTH*: that
the univers is SIMPLE and EASY.
And since you still don't UNDERSTAND COMPLETLY what's the univers
and you don't know its ESSENCE: this imply/prove that you are LIMITED
in your CAPACITY.
And this doesn't contractict what i have said.
The super intelligent machine KNOWS that the UNIVERS is in reality
SIMPLE and EASY: and it's the TRUTH.
*EVEN* if you don't understand it and still make FALSE affirmations:
like the univers is COMPLEX and DIFICCULT
Do you understand or not yet ?
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramadane
Amine
( note: It will be my last post on this subject, please read the
following..)
On Aug 4, 12:53 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >Do you agree that in order for something to BECOME simple and easy, one
> >sometimes has to go through a DIFFICULT and/or COMPLEX process?
You have all to be SMARTER than that my dear Chris M. Thomasson
If you have noticed, Chris M. Thomasson have wrote:
>Do you agree that in order for something
Notice the: 'something'
I think that i have proved that:
[1] "Every complet ABSTRACT repersentation is SIMPLE and EASY"
Do you notice the word: *ABSTRACT*
Now be smarter...
If you have noticed, the statement [1] above does inform us
on the REALITY and the ESSENCE of the THING
It means that the ABSTRACT world does effectively inform us
on the REALITY of the THINGS..
Now, as the examples that i gave before:
If you have UNDERTOOD COMPLETLY the derivative or the system that
we call univers, its ABSTRACT representation - that you have formed
inside
your conscience - will be the TRUTH and this complet abstract
represention
will inform us on the REAL thing: like for example the univers or the
derivative
are in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
'Conscience' of a thing is a set of ideas.
And since an idea belong to the ABSTRACT set (world)
=> the conscience IS an abstract thing
And based on my statement[1] we can also affirm that:
Since algorithms are abstract representations
and EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY
Amine
On Aug 4, 12:57 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
> Amine wrote:
>
> ) Do you understand or not yet ?
>
> You don't seem to understand that words like 'simple', 'easy', 'complex'
> and 'difficult' are subjective measures.
I think you have not understood...
Properties like SIMPLE and EASY are just states of consciousness
(inside our brain).
As soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative - through
an OBJECTIVE analysis - you will have a COMPLET abstract
representation
of it in your consciousness , YOU WILL KNOW ITS *TRUTH* , and since
those
states of consciousness that we call SIMPLE and EASY are the result of
a
COMPLET UNDERSTANDING they are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
Please read again...
Suppose that you have COMPLETLY understood what is the derivative
F(x+dx) -F(x) /dx
The complet abstract representation of it - in your consciousness -
will
become SIMPLE and EASY.
Let suppose that another person still don't understand what is the
derivative and he come to the conclusion that the derivative is
complex and diffcult
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
We want to find the TRUTH about the derivative: is it COMPLEX or
SIMPLE?
Since you have understood it completly , it is YOU that have the
*TRUTH*
about the derivative: so you will say that it's SIMPLE and EASY and
this
is the TRUTH
Now another example:
Imagine that an intelligent super powerfull machine has
understood the UNIVERS as a system from inside out.
Let suppose that humans still don't understand what is the univers
as a system and they still affirm that the univers is COMPLEX and
DIFFICULT.
Now who is right and who is wrong ?
The intelligent super powerful machine or the humans ?
We want to find the *TRUTH* about the univers as a system:
is it COMPLEX or SIMPLE?
Of course that it is the intelligent super powerfull machine
that is telling the TRUTH.
Since the intelligent super powerfull machine have UNDERSTOOD
COMPLETLY the system that we call univers, it's the intelligent
super
powerfull machine that have the *TRUTH* about it: that means
that the univers if in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
On Aug 4, 8:32 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 12:57 pm, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
>
> > Amine wrote:
>
> > ) Do you understand or not yet ?
>
> > You don't seem to understand that words like 'simple', 'easy', 'complex'
> > and 'difficult' are subjective measures.
>
> I think you have not understood...
>
> Properties like SIMPLE and EASY are just states of consciousness
> (inside our brain).
Sorry about my english. (I don't speak very well english, i am
just making a lot of efforts to explain my ideas), so please be quiet
and don't be racist.
But what i mean is when you say something is SIMPLE
SIMPLE and EASY are *IMPRESSIONS* that you have
So, as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative -
through an OBJECTIVE analysis - you will have a COMPLET abstract
representation of it in your consciousness , YOU WILL KNOW ITS
*TRUTH* ,
and since those impressions that we call SIMPLE and EASY are the
result of
a COMPLET UNDERSTANDING they are the *TRUTH* about the derivative.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
Amine
On Aug 5, 4:44 am, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:56 pm, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
>
> > Since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
> > you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
> > that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT
>
> But you know that's not true, since describing something as "complex"
> or "difficult" means that a process just as the one you described is
> required.
>[..]
>Now stop being a retard.
Reread what i have wrote:
"since you DIDN'T KNOW completly the derivative
you had just a *FALSE* impression: you THOUGHT *FALSLY*
that the derivative was COMPLEX and DIFFICULT"
I also said: *FALSLY*
It means that the derivative was before COMPLEX and DIFFICULT (for
you)
*and* that was *FALSE*
you thought *FALSLY* that it was the TRUTH.
And as soon as you have COMPLETLY UNDERSTOOD the derivative
it has become SIMPLE and EASY.
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND and KNOW the system
that you are CERTAIN about its properties !
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the DOOR as a system
that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the derivative
that you will finally be CERTAIN about its properties
that you will finally have the *TRUTH* about it
that the door as a system is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
How hard is that to understand David Schwartz ?
Now stop being a retard !
Amine.
Al Slater
> On Aug 3, 1:51 am, Vaclav Haisman <v.hais...@sh.cvut.cz> wrote:
>> Amine wrote, On 3.8.2009 2:31:> [...]
>>
>> Would you please stop this verbal diarrhoea
>
> It's not verbal diarrhoea
Yes it is. Please take the discussion somewhere where they might care.
Al
Amine
David Schwartz wrote:
> > Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
> > deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right.
And this affirmation is FALSE.
That's NOT The *TRUTH*.
If you ask me a question like
"Why abstract philosophy and logic ?
I will answer that:
The purpose of abstract philosophy and logic is:
to help us find the TRUTH.
So i repeat:
It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) !
When you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND spinlocks
You will finally be CERTAIN about there properties
You will finally have the *TRUTH* about them
that the spinlocks are is in fact SIMPLE and EASY
and that's TRUE.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
I said:
"It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system, that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) ! "
You are NOT SO SMART to understand what i mean David Schwartz.
.
The intelligent super powerful machine will someday confirm
to you that you are a STUPID FOOLISH DONKEY , and it will
confirm that spinlocks and the Azul system etc... are in fact
*SIMPLE* and *EASY* systems: and that is the TRUTH.
Think about it !
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
I wrote:
>'Conscience' of a thing is a set of ideas.
>
> And since an idea belong to the ABSTRACT set (world)
I mean consciousness is a set of ideas.
'Conscience' in french means consciousness.
Regards,
Amine.
Amine
I wrote:
"[1] EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY"
And also i wrote:
"Consciousness of a thing is a set of ideas.
and since an idea belong to the ABSTRACT set (world)
=> the consciousness IS an abstract thing
And based on my statement[1] we can also affirm that:
Since algorithms are abstract representations
and EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY
So , every algorithm is SIMPLE and EASY."
If you ask me: "What do you mean by statement[1] ?"
[1] "EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY" ?
I didn't find the words in english to write it correctly,
but here is what i mean by this:
A complet abstract representation is also a complet consciousness
of a thing. And if you have followed with me , i have said before
that:
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system, that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) ! "
Now if you have a complet abstract representation - a complet
Consciousness -
of a thing, that means - see [2] - that you are CERTAIN about its
properties,
and like the example of the derivative that i gave before: the reality
of the thing
will become SIMPLE and EASY, EVEN if others don't understand it.
That's the same for algoritms, when someone discover/invent an
algorithm
this person have a complet abstract representation of it , a complet
consciousness
of the algorithm, and as the example of the derivative that i gave
before, this
algorithm has become SIMPLE and EASY for the inventor, he understand
it VERY WELL.
So, the algorithm - see [2] - is in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
And this is true for every algorithm, this is why i have stated that:
Every algorithm is in fact SIMPLE and EASY, EVEN if others don't
understand it..
And that's why i also stated:
"EVERY complet abstract representation is SIMPLE and EASY"
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello.
Humans affirm such things as: the univers is COMPLEX.
But i don't agree.
Cause as i exlpained it before , as soon as we UNDERSTAND
COMPLETLY the SYSTEM , we will have a complet abstract
representation of it in form of consciousness, and this system
will become SIMPLE and EASY.
And based on what i have said and stated before:, i will also say
that:
There is NO COMPLEXITY in the univers.
And there is no COMPLEXITY in the ABSTRACT world.(theories,
algorithms...)
And it is the TRUTH.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
I wrote that:
>There is NO COMPLEXITY in the univers.
>And there is no COMPLEXITY in the ABSTRACT world.(theories,
>algorithms..)
Now if you ask a question like:
"How is it that the univers is NOT complex
and we are still not able to comprehend it completly ??"
I respond that:
There is NO complexity in the univers , it is in fact EASY
to comprehend, BUT since we are LIMITED in our CAPACITY
and ABILITY, we are not yet able to completly comprehend it..
Hence, there is no contradiction.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello,
I wrote
2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system, that you are CERTAIN about its properties
(like complex,simple..) ! "
And this statement is TRUE: that's the TRUTH.
Now when you completly understand the derivate, you will
have a complet representation of it in your consciousness ,
you will KNOW it, you will be CERTAIN about its properties
- like simple and easy... -and you will KNOW that it is in fact
SIMPLE and EASY, and that's the TRUTH.
That's the same for an algorithm: when an inventor and
researcher complelty understand an algorithm, he will have
a complet abstract representation of it in his consciousness,
he will completly comprehend the algorithm, and he will
finally KNOW - see [2] - that the algorithm is in fact
SIMPLE and EASY, and that's the TRUTH.
*EVEN* if others don't comprehend it and still says
that it's complex and difficul.
And that's the same for every algorithm, theories etc...
So, the ABSTRACT world is in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
The same for the univers and what is inside the univers.
Cause If you have noticed we are converging towards
the TRUTH: that the univers is fact SIMPLE and EASY.
And it's why i have stated that
There is NO COMPLEXITY in the univers.
And there is no COMPLEXITY in the ABSTRACT world.(theories,
algorithms..)
And this is the same for what is INSIDE the univers..
Now if you ask me a question like this:
"How is it that the univers and what is inside the univers
EASY and NOT complex and we are still not able to
comprehend it completly ??"
I respond that:
There is NO complexity in the univers and inside the univers,
it is in fact SIMPLE and EASY, BUT since we are LIMITED
Amine
I wrote:
>[...]
> And this is the same for what is INSIDE the univers..
If you have noticed i have used the word 'INSIDE'.
What do i mean by that ?
Is an idea a part of the univers or not ?
Yes it is. Cause it's just a chemical process inside our brain.
And what about an algorithm or a theory ?
Yes it is part of the univers , cause an algorithm is a set of ideas.
and an idea is just a chemical process inside our brain.
And what about consciousness ?
Since consciousness is a set of ideas, it's in fact part of the
univers.
Is the Azul system part of the univers ?
YES it is.
And i have wrote:
2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system, that you are *CERTAIN* about its properties
(like complex,simple..) ! "
And this statement is TRUE -> that's the TRUTH.
Now when you completly understand a system, you will
have a complet representation of it in your CONSCIOUSNESS,
you will KNOW it, you will be *CERTAIN* - see [2] - about its
properties - like simple and easy... -and you will KNOW that it
is in fact SIMPLE and EASY, and that's the TRUTH.
The complet consciousness - of the inventor and researcher - of a
system - like an algorithm or a theory - does effectively inform on
the
reality of the system or the thing -see [2] - : that its SIMPLE and
EASY.
Now if you ask me a question like this:
"How is it that the univers and what is inside the univers
is EASY and NOT complex and we are still not able to
Amine
Hello,
Reread:
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - with objective analysis -
and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like complex,simple.. - ! "
Let us take as an example the Derivative and the proofs of the Goedel
theorems.
If i ask you: who is more complex and difficult ,
is it the proofs of the Goedel theorems or the Derivative ?
(I think) You will respond that:
The proofs of the Goedel theorems are more complex and difficult than
the derivative.
Right ?
But that's NOT true !
Why ?
Since we are LIMITED in our CAPACITY and ABILITY,
we make more efforts to understand the proofs of Goedel theorems. and
we
say that the Goedel theorem are more complex and difficult than the
derivative.
*BUT* there is NO Complexity in the proofs of the Goedel theorems,
The *TRUTH* is that the proofs of the Goedel theorems are SIMPLE and
EASY.
Why ?
It is when you will COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND the proofs of the Goedel
theorems
and have a complet abstract representation of them in yours
consciousness,
that you will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY* about there
properties
- like SIMPLE and EASY ... - - see [2]
*AND*
as soon as you UNDERSTAND THEM COMPLETLY, you will JUDGE
and say with *CERTAINTY* that they are SIMPLE and EASY: and
that's the TRUTH.
That's the same for the univers and what is inside the univers
(computers, machines, theories , algorithms etc..)
All the univers and what is inside the univers is SIMPLE and EASY.
Because as soon as we completly comprehend a system ,
we are able to JUDGE with CERTAINTY about its properties
- like SIMPLE and EASY - and the system will become
SIMPLE and EASY, and we will say that it's SIMPLE and EASY:
and that the *TRUTH*. - see [2] -
Amine
Hello,
Finally i will say that:
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective analysis
-
and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like complex,simple.. - ! "
Since [2] is TRUE -> it's the TRUTH.
As soon as we understand completly a thing or a system
and acquire a COMPLET KNOWLEGE about it - through objective analysis
-
- see [2] - we will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY* about its
properties.
*And*
Since the COMPLET KNOWLEDGE of a thing (or a system) will inform us
on its REALITY.
*And*
Since the COMPLET KNOWLEDGE of a thing (or a system) will tell us that
its
properties are always: SIMPLE and EASY.
I will affirm that:
All the univers and what is inside the univers (computers,
machines,theories, algorithms etc..)
is SIMPLE and EASY.
Amine
Now as i said, the univers and what is inside the univers is in fact
SIMPLE
and EASY.
*BUT* i will add that the 'construction' and the 'understanding'
processes
may be DIFFICULT , because , and as i have said , we are LIMITED in
our CAPACITY and ABILITY.
And there is no contradiction.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
Amine
I correct my previous post::
(Sorry for my english, i didn't find the correct words..)
Now as i said, the univers and what is inside the univers is in fact
SIMPLE
and EASY, *EXCEPT* for the 'construction' and the 'understanding'
processes
that may be DIFFICULT , because , and as i have said , we are
LIMITED in
our CAPACITY and ABILITY.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane
Amine
NO !
I think there is still a problem !
As i explained before:
the univers is in fact SIMPLE and EASY, EVEN if you don't understand
it
the theories , algorithms , computers etc. -- reread my previous
posts- are
in fact simple and easy (systems), EVEN if you don't understand them.
BUT the problem is in our body (and brain) !
we get tired, sick etc..
and we are LIMITED in our CAPACITY and ABILITY !
Poor humans !
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Finally i will say that:
The Azul systems and the spinlocks , theories , algorithms etc.
are in fact SIMPLE and EASY.
*BUT* as i said , we may get tired, sick etc.. and we are LIMITED in
our CAPACITY
and ABILITY, so , if someone says for example that the Azul system is
COMPLEX
and DIFFULT, that 's TRUE that it's COMPLEX and DIFFICULT for HIM,
but the TRUTH is that the Azul system is SIMPLE and EASY.
That's the same for a machine. (if the machine is LIMITED in its
CAPACITY
and ABILITY)
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello,
spinnoza1111 wrote:
> This is just warmed-over Platonism, I'm afraid. Plato's Ideas contain
> just the "simple and essential" features of the object in question. A
> Platonic right triangle has an area precisely equal (a*b)/2 whereas a
> "real" triangle, for example, a triangular pasture in Plato's time,
> might have an area slightly larger or smaller depending on which
> farmer owns the land under the fence, which in the real world has a
> thickness that a line does not.
>[...]
>We don't even see Platonic triangles on the computer screen, although
>we might think so, because the boundary line is itself a "fence" of
>one pixel. Even in the case of a "Platonic" triangle with no boundary
>but whose color differs from its background, what we "see" is
>constructed out of rectangular pixels, therefore at some level of
>vision, the hypotenuse we think we "see perfectly" is actually a
>Stairway to Heaven.
The COMPLET UNDERSTANDING of a system (or a thing), will inform
us on its properties and its REALITY - see [2] - *EVEN* if you can
not construct it , and you are LIMITED in your CAPACITY and ABILITY.
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis
-
and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like complex,simple.."
>First of all: things can never be "easy" in themselves because "easy"
>refers at all times to our ability to apprehend them, and this varies.
As soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system , and we
completly comprehend it , we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like SIMPLE and EASY - and the system will
become SIMPLE and EASY, and we will say that it's SIMPLE and EASY:
and that the *TRUTH*. - see [2] -
>Secondly, the only meaning of "simple" apart from "easy" is having
>parts. This means your claim is that "all things are simple, no things
>have parts".
When people say VERY COMPLEX in english they mean also DIFFICULT.
Read what have wrote David Shwatcz:
>" [...] Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right."
What do you think he means by: 'phenomenally complex' ?
So what do i have to say ?
COMPLEX and EASY.
or
SIMPLE and EASY ?
It's why i have said: SIMPLE and EASY.
So, i will correct and say: COMPLEX *and* EASY.
and i wrote:
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis
-
and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like complex,simple.."
So, as soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system , and we
completly comprehend it , we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like EASY - and the system will
become EASY, and we will say that it's EASY:
and that's the *TRUTH*. - see [2] -
Regards
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Read what have wrote David Shwatcz:
>" [...] Spinlocks are phenomenally complex. You have to have a very
>deep understanding of the CPU internals to get them right."
When he said the spinlocks are PHENOMENALLY or VERY complex,
he means also that they are DIFFICULT.
Now logically:
If the understanding process of the CPU internals etc. to get the
spinlock
right is EASY for a person , that means that David Shwatcz is NOT so
SMART as
this person that have found the spinlocks EASY.
And i really think that David Shwatcz is NOT SO SMART.
AND
If you have noticed, what i have said is:
the spinlocks , theories, algorithms , computers,softwares etc. are in
fact
EASY, *EVEN* if you don't understand them completly, or you can not
construct them , and say that they are difficult.
When you find systems like theories,computers , algorithms,softwares
etc.
difficult, they are difficult FOR YOU because you are LIMITED in your
CAPACITY
and ABILITY... not because those systems (computers, theories ,
algothms,softwares etc,,)
are difficult.
Those systems (computers, theories , algorithms , softwares etc.) are
in fact EASY.
Why ?
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis - and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE
with *CERTAINTY* about its properties - like EASY etc.."
Hence,. as soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system
(like spinlocks, computers, thoeries,algorithms etc..) , and
COMPLETLY comprehend it, we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like EASY - and the system will
become EASY, and we will say that it's EASY: and that's the *TRUTH*.
- see [2] -
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
Hello,
spinoza1111 wrote:
>What is real or even "simple" about "the set of all men who do not
>shave themselves who must be shaven by the barber?"
>What is real or even "simple" about the statement "this statement is
>false"?
>What is real or even "simple" about the Ninth Symphony?
>[...]
When you take a look at the univers and you objectively analyse it,
and you see for example something that ressemble a CIRCLE , and
you also see other forms and things that are more COMPLEX than the
circle ,
does SIMPLE and COMPLEX really exist or is it just a dream ?
I think YES , they really exist, because correct logic and
reasonning
does effectively work.
And I think that properties like SIMPLE and COMPLEX are not just a
dream ,
cause as soon as we analyse objectively the REALITY,and we have a
COMPLET
UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE of a system (or a thing) , this complet
KNOWLEDGE will finally INFORM us on the REALITY and properties of the
thing
(or the system) .
And i think that's the same thing for properties like EASY.
Amine
I wrote:
[...]
> And i think that's the same thing for properties like EASY.
I will also add that the gravitation force is in fact EASY in itself,
that's why we CAN comprehend it. If it was not (easy),. we will not
be able to understand/comprehend it or understand/comprehend
the other systems in the univers..
That's the same for theories , computers , softwares etc..
When you find systems like theories,computers , algorithms,softwares
etc. difficult, they are difficult FOR YOU because you are LIMITED
in
your
CAPACITY and ABILITY... not because those systems (computers,
theories ,
algothms,softwares etc,,) are difficult.
Those systems are in fact EASY.
Amine
Hello,
Take for example the gravitation force, if it were difficult in ITSELF
that
will mean that the system is in itself DIFFICULT - that its property
is: DIFFICULT -
But since we have UNDERSTAND IT COMPLETLY , and we have
a COMPLET KNOWLEDGE about the graviatation force , that means
that the gravitation force is NOT DIFFICULT - it has the property:
NOT DIFFICULT -
And if you have noticed we have already completly understand
many systems: gravitation force, and many theories, algorithms etc.
that means those systems are NOT DIFFICULT in themselves ,
there property is: NOT DIFFICULT
*AND*
Since
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis - and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE
with *CERTAINTY* about its properties - like EASY etc.."
So,. as soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system
(like spinlocks, computers, thoeries,algorithms etc..) , and
COMPLETLY comprehend it, we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like EASY - and the system will
become EASY, and we will say that it's EASY: and that's the *TRUTH*.
- see [2] -
It is why i have stated that:
Those systems: computers, theories , algorithms , softwares etc.
are in fact EASY, EVEN if someone is LIMITED in his CAPACITY and
ABILITY
and is don't understand them.
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
> Hello,
>
> Take for example the gravitation force, if it were difficult in ITSELF
> that
> will mean that the system is in itself DIFFICULT - that its property
> is: DIFFICULT -
>
> But since we have UNDERSTAND IT COMPLETLY , and we have
but since we have UNDERSTOOD IT COMPLETLY...
sorry for my english...
> a COMPLET KNOWLEDGE about the graviatation force , that means
> that the gravitation force is NOT DIFFICULT - it has the property:
> NOT DIFFICULT -
>
> And if you have noticed we have already completly understand
And if you have noticed we have already completly understood...
Amine
On Aug 9, 11:23 am, Amine <ami...@colba.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Take for example the gravitation force, if it were difficult in ITSELF
> that
> will mean that the system is in itself DIFFICULT - that its property
> is: DIFFICULT -
I have thought about those properties like easy, difficult, simple
etc.
does they really exist in REALITY ?
So let's take for example the gravitation force:
If X is the gravitation force
When the DIFFICULTY of X is INFINITE, that means
that X - the gravitation force - is really really really ...
difficult to the infinite,
hence we will state that:
the system X can NOT BE COMPHENDED,
and the really really really really ... difficult (difficult to the
INFINITE )
does effectively EXIST.
BUT since we have already UNDERSTOOD/COMPREHEND the
gravitation force , that means: the NOT DIFFICULT to the INFINITE
really EXIST,
and that also means that the gravitation force is in ITSELF: NOT
DIFFICULT to the INFINITE
Now, those COMPLEX theories, algorithms, computers etc
are in fact COMPLEX and *EASY*, EVEN if someone
is LIMITED in his CAPACITY and ABILITY and don't understand them
or take a lot of TIME to understand them .
*And* i have wrote that
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis - and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE
with *CERTAINTY* about its properties - like EASY etc.."
So,. as soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system
(like spinlocks, computers, thoeries,algorithms etc..) , and
COMPLETLY comprehend it, we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like EASY - and the system will
become EASY, and we will say that it's EASY: and that's the *TRUTH*.
- see [2] -
It is why i have stated that:
Those systems: computers, theories , algorithms , softwares etc.
are in fact EASY, EVEN a if someone is LIMITED in his CAPACITY
and ABILITY and don't understand them or take a lot of TIME to
understand them .
Regards,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amine
On Aug 10, 8:24 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Ed Prochak said:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Starting with faulty premises can only lead you to false
> > conclusions.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Premise: to obtain the sum of two values, multiply them.
>
> Data: 2, 2
>
> Process: 2 * 2 = 4
>
> Conclusion: The sum of 2 and 2 is 4.
>
> The premise is false, but the conclusion is correct. False premises
> /can/ lead to correct conclusions. Just not very often, that's all.
> (More precisely, there are infinitely many correct conclusions to be
> drawn from infinitely many false premises, but these infinitely many
> are vanishingly few compared to the number of incorrect conclusions
> that can be drawn from false premises.)
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> This line unintentionally left unblank
Don't forget that systems that are INFINITELY DIFFICULT may in fact
exist.
I will add:
Let's take another example:
Suppose that a person DON'T KNOW what is an airplane
and he come to the false conclusion that the airplane is GOD.
Is his conclusion right or wrong ?
It's when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis - that you will know what's an aiplane.
That's why i have said:
[2] "It is when you COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND - through objective
analysis - and KNOW the system, that you will be able to JUDGE
with *CERTAINTY* about its properties - like EASY etc.."
So,. as soon as we COMPLETLY UNDERSTAND a system
(like spinlocks, computers, thoeries,algorithms etc..) , and
COMPLETLY comprehend it, we are able to JUDGE with *CERTAINTY*
about its properties - like EASY - and the system will
become EASY, and we will say that it's EASY: and that's the *TRUTH*.
- see [2] -
It is why i have stated that:
Those systems: computers, theories , algorithms , softwares etc.
are in fact EASY, EVEN if someone is LIMITED in his CAPACITY