What is it to be smart ?

[amin...@gmail.com]

Hello,


What is it to be smart ?

Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo:

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

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

Why are humans smarter than other animals?

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

So as you are noticing he is saying the following:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

So i think that the above webpage is not right.

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

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

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

Look at the following webpage from BBC:

The myth of universal beauty

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[Bonita Montero]

Am 01.08.2020 um 01:25 schrieb amin...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
> What is it to be smart ?
> Read my following thoughts, since i have just corrected a typo:
> I am a white arab, and i think i am smart like a genius ,
> since i have invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today i will speak about what is it to be "smart"..

"Intenting" algorithms which have been invtented before and
which aren't rudimentary complex doesn't make you a genius.

[amin...@gmail.com]

I give you an example, read the following:

"Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction."

Read more here:

https://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/lock-free-code-a-false-sense-of-security/210600279

[Bonita Montero]

> "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction."

That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex.

[amin...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction."
>
> That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex.

I think that you are not understanding correctly, since in my previous
posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms i said that it is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice:

"Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze."

Read more here:

https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1


So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why,
and he is in accordance with my writing, read them again carefully:

More analysis of Lock-free algorithms..

I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs:

Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science

Here he is:

http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html

and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories

Here he is:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en

Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention:

https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf


I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is
why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention:

About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again..

Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing:

http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf

I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my
new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc.

Read my following thoughts to notice it:

About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented

many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today

i will talk more about Lock-free algorithms..

I have previously invented a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm, but i have just invented a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue, but can we ask the question of: Do we have to be really smart to be able to invent those Lock-free algorithms ?

I think that we have to be smart to be able to invent them, because when you are inventing them you have to be able from the many characteristics of the Lock-free algorithm and the restrictive compare-and-swap (CAS) and/or double-length CAS (DCAS) to be able to invent them, so you are too restricted or too constrained and it makes the job of inventing those Lock-free algorithms difficult, this is why you have to be smart, and as you have noticed i have first invented a Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm that is based on an almost(very nearly) Lock-free bounded FIFO queue, and this almost Lock-free bounded FIFO queue of mine has the following advantages(and notice that it only doesn't support Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads):

- Signal Immunity: The C and C++Standards prohibit signals or
asynchronous interrupts from calling many system routines such
as malloc. If the interrupt calls malloc at the same time with
an interrupted thread, that could cause deadlock. With my
algorithms, there's no such problem anymore: Threads can
freely interleave execution.
- Priority Inversion Immunity: Priority inversion occurs when a
low-priority thread holds a lock to a mutex needed by a high-
priority thread. Such tricky conflicts must be resolved by the
OS kernel.
- Pre-emption tolerant and they are good at convoy-avoidance.
- Starvation-free.
- And for k number of threads in the system (of my almost Lock-
free FIFO queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or
my almost Lock-free LIFO stack), my almost Lock-free FIFO
queue or my almost Lock-free FIFO priority queue or my almost
Lock-free LIFO stack have a system latency of O(q + s*sqrt(k)
and an individual latency of O(k(q + s*sqrt(k)), but my
algorithms are of the SCU(0,1) Class of Algorithms, so under
scheduling conditions which approximate those found in
commercial hardware architectures, there system latency is
O(sqrt(k)) and there individual latency is O(k*sqrt(k)),
read more below to understand more.

You can read about them and download them from my website here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/lockfree-bounded-lifo-stack-and-fifo-queue


But i will show you soon my inventions of a fully Lock-free bounded LIFO stack algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded FIFO queue algorithm and of a fully Lock-free bounded limited priority queue algorithm.

[amin...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction."
>
> That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex.

I think that you are not understanding correctly, since in my previous

posts about my inventions of Lock-free algorithms i said that it is difficult and i have explained why, and there is a difference between saying it is difficult and saying it is complex, read the following from Dr. Dobb's to notice:

"Lock-Free Algorithms and Data Structures. Lock-free algorithms address the issues raised by locks, but bring their own set of problems. Their use in the industry is still fairly new. At their core, they rely on atomic operations at the hardware level. It is very hard to design and implement lock-free algorithms properly because the building blocks are very small; when you compose them, the emerging behavior is not trivial to analyze."

Read more here:

https://www.drdobbs.com/parallel/concurrent-programming-with-chain-lockin/240149442?pgno=1


So notice that he is saying that it is "very hard" and he is explaining why,
and he is in accordance with my writing, read them again carefully:

More analysis of Lock-free algorithms..

I have just looked at the following invention of a Lock-free bounded queue by the following PhDs:

Peter Pirkelbauer that is a PhD in computer science

Here he is:

http://pirkelbauer.com/cv_peter_pirkelbauer.html

and by Reed Milewicz Postdoctoral Appointee, Sandia National Laboratories

Here he is:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PzG-VUAAAAAJ&hl=en

Here is there paper of there Portable Lock-free Bounded Queue invention:

https://rmmilewi.github.io/files/lockfreequeue16.pdf


I think that there Lock-free Bounded Queue invention has a disadvantage , it is that it is too "complex", so it is not good , this is
why i have just invented my following Lock-free Bounbed Queue and a Lock-free Bounded Stack that are simple to reason about and are much less complex than the above invention:

About software fault tolerance and reliability, read again..

Read the following interesting document about Fault-tolerant computing:

http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~rennels/article98.pdf

I will soon provide you with my following new inventions that are my
new Lock-free algorithms that support software fault tolerance and reliability in a form of Thread-killing Immunity, that means any thread forcefully killed in the system won't delay other threads, and in a form of Signal Immunity and in a form of Pre-emption tolerance and convoy-avoidance and in a form of Priority Inversion Immunity etc.

Read my following thoughts to notice it:

About my new inventions of Lock-free algorithms..

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented

many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today

[amin...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 11:44:29 AM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > "Second, it's hard even for experts. It's easy to write lock-free code that appears to work, but it's very difficult to write lock-free code that is correct and performs well. Even good magazines and refereed journals have published a substantial amount of lock-free code that was actually broken in subtle ways and needed correction."
>
> That's idiocracy. Lock-free programming isn't complex.

Here is the definition of "complex" in the dictionary:

"Something that is complex has many different parts, and is therefore often difficult to understand."

Read the dictionary here to notice it:

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


So as you are noticing that complex doesn't mean difficult, because complex
has "many" different parts, and this is why you are not understanding my writing about Lock-free algorithms, since i said that they are "difficult"
even if they are not complex, since even they are not complex, you have to be smart to be able to see the paths or the parts that are hidden to be able
to invent them, this is why you have to be smart to be able to invent
a Lock-free bounded stack or Lock-free bounded queue.

Read my my following previous thoughts to understand:

I am a white arab, and i think i am smart since i have invented

many scalable algorithms and there implementations, and today

[Bonita Montero]

Sorry, you're an idiot.
Lock-free programming isn't complex and you're not an inventor.
Lock-free queues and stacks are rather simple.

[amin...@gmail.com]

I think that you are still "immature", and since you just keep
repeating that i am stupid, this proves that you are stupid,
because you have to invent a new and good lock-free "bounded"
FIFO queue so that to notice that i am right, this is what
i am doing, i am inventing them.

[Bonita Montero]

> I think that you are still "immature", and since you just keep
> repeating that i am stupid, this proves that you are stupid,
> because you have to invent a new and good lock-free "bounded"
> FIFO queue so that to notice that i am right, this is what
> i am doing, i am inventing them.

You've not invented anything, you copied algorithms already
invented.

[amin...@gmail.com]

No, i didn't copied algorithms already invented.

[Bonita Montero]

> No, i didn't copied algorithms already invented.

You're not able to recognize what you do since you're manic
and you have megalomania.

[amin...@gmail.com]

You have to see me in real life, i am not manic and i am not megalomania.

I just want to "show" that i am smart, so i have invented many
scalable algorithms and i am still inventing algorithms.

[Bonita Montero]

You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder.

[amin...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:24:45 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder.

I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane.

But when you see me writing poetry, it is just that i want to show
that i am more "smart" than other at writing poetry, and i am a gentleman
type of person, and the other thing is the following:

[amin...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 3:24:45 PM UTC-4, Bonita Montero wrote:
> You're not even manic, you have a bipolar disorder.

I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane.

But when you see me writing poetry, it is just that i want to show
that i am more "smart" than others at writing poetry, and also when
you see me writing my political philosophy , it is just that i want to show
that i am more smart than others, so as you are noticing that my "engine" is that i want to show that i am smart, and i am a gentleman type of person, and the other thing is the following:

[Bonita Montero]

> I don't have bipolar disorder, i am mentally sane.

You alternately post waterfalls here like manic, you have megalomania
and call yourself a genius, you have several contignous days where you
don't post here and I'm pretty sure you're depressed than: that's a
bipolar disorder.