About the logical consistency of my writing about abstraction and efficiency

[Horizon68]

Hello..


About the logical consistency of my writing about abstraction and
efficiency:

I wrote previously the following:

"You can feel it by seeing that mathematically a+a=2*a, it is also
about abstraction, it is like commutative, a+a abstract 2*a
and 2*a abstract a+a"


Is it logically consistent to say so ?

Yes, because you have to read what follows, here is what follows:

"And you can also run the abstraction of 2*a or a+a in your brain and if
your brain contains the consciousness of the understanding of the
abstractions, then the understanding of the abstractions will come to
you quickly, so then, is the understanding of the abstractions is part
of the process that we call abstraction ? i think it is
a more appropriate philosophy, so i think we can answer with
a "yes"."


So as you are noticing i am "including" in my philosophy, that i think
is more appropriate, the understanding of the abstractions in the
process that we call abstraction. So there is no logical inconsistency.


So read again my previous post:


About abstraction and efficiency..


When you abstract and say or write mathematically:

a+a= 2*a

I think this is the most important part of the philosophy
of computing or parallel computing, i think you have to be a wise type
of person like me to see it clearly..

Philosophy about computing is something really important,
what are we doing in computing or parallel computing ? i mean how to
abstract the answer to feel it much more correctly ?

You can feel it by seeing that mathematically a+a=2*a, it is also
about abstraction, it is like commutative, a+a abstract 2*a
and 2*a abstract a+a, and you can also run the abstraction
of 2*a or a+a in your brain and if your brain contains the
consciousness of the understanding of the abstractions ,
then the understanding of the abstractions will come to you quickly,
so then, is the understanding of the abstractions is part
of the process that we call abstraction ? i think it is
a more appropriate philosophy, so i think we can answer with
a "yes".

So now by analogy you are feeling more how to abstract much more
correctly the philosophy of computing, it becomes more clearly
that in computing or parallel computing we are abstracting more and more
towards higher level of abstractions, and we are organizing those
abstractions like a "language" to be executed in computers, and the
understanding of the abstractions must be part of the process of
abstracting in computing or parallel computing, and the abstractions
must be "efficient" and then we are also running those higher level
abstractions in our computers.

This is why you have previously seen me posting the following, read it
carefully:

Analogy with parallel computing..

My personality is more complex, you have to understand me more,
when i say i am also a gay like Chevy Chase because i am more
humoristic, you have to understand this "abstraction" of saying
humoristic, i am humoristic like Chevy Chase because i am more
positive and i want the others to be more posititive, so i can
be humoristic to make you positive, but my humoristic way
of doing is more "smart", because i can use a sophisticated humoristic
manner to learn you more about morality and about life and i am
more intellectual in doing so.

And speaking about "abstractions", i think it is a good subject
of philosophy, because i think you have to be capable
of philosophy about computing, i think one of the main part
of computing is also about abstracting, but it is not only
about abstracting but you have to abstract and be sophisticated
in it by making your abstractions "efficient". I give you an example:

As you know i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms, and
one of my last invention is a Fast Mutex that is adaptative,
so i have extracted the abstractions from my Fast Mutex,
and those abstractions are like a language or like an automaton
that is also like a protocol that is constituted of a language,
so when i execute the abstraction that is the Enter() method, it will
enter the Fast Mutex, and when i execute the abstraction that is
the Leave() method, it will leave the Fast Mutex, but you have
to be more smart, because it is "not" enough to abstract, you
have to be more efficient, i mean that i am thinking like a researcher
when i have invented my last Fast Mutex by taking into account
the following characteristics, so i have made my new Fast Mutex powerful
by making it as the following:


1- Starvation-free
2- Good fairness
3- It keeps efficiently and very low the cache coherence traffic
4- Very good fast path performance (it has the same performance as the
scalable MCS lock when there is contention.)
5- And it has a good preemption tolerance.


I think that you will not find anywhere this new invention of mine.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.