Index Of The Perfection

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Shane Rouse

unread,

Aug 5, 2024, 8:14:24 AM8/5/24

to glucjacklepad

Anadequate expression for density of stocking in even-aged forests has long been sought by foresters. Comparison of total basal area of the stand with yield-table values of basal area for the same age and site quality has been the usual method of evaluating stand density. Other methods have been proposed, but none has given results good enough to warrant general adoption or displacement of the basal-area method. It is the purpose of this paper to present a stand-density index which does not require a yield table and which is not affected by possible errors in shape of tho total basal area-age curve. This stand-density index, based on the relationship between number of trees per acre and their average diameter, is premised on the characteristic distribution of tree sizes in even-aged stands.

It is a well-established fact that in any given stand a curve showing the relative (percentile) frequency of occurrence of the various tree sizes (diameters) has a characteristic form, often approximating that of the "normal frequency curve" or "normal curve of error".

There are some words in the Quality Analysis field that I grew to dislike: let me start with perfect. Only learning more and growing with time in my career, I realised that we may need to be a bit more careful about how we talk about our field and what are the exact expectations. If we do not, we may be stagnating in siloed tribes of QA departments full of grudge and pain of not getting the perfect software.

What changed my career was getting exposure to analytics, monitoring, metrics, logs. Understanding what actually is important to the user is eye-opening. We may think that as QAs we represent the customers, but we may be surprised! Also, having the analytics we can quantify the value of bugs (my article on Sticky Minds about monitoring goes to a bigger depth).

P. S. Two books that popped into my head while doing this write-up and I could definitely recommend reading are Perfect Software: And Other Illusions about Testing by Gerald Weinberg, and Accelerate by Gene Kim, Jez Humble, and Nicole Forsgren. The first one touches on the perfection aspect quite a bit on a high-level, while the second one talks more about high-performing teams and how to measure success better.

Sorry for taking a little while to respond to this thread. I've been preaching open air in Montana and just came down to Utah to preach with Brother Evan Schiable and others.

The Lord has been moving mightily, the Spirit's been working and has anointed the preaching. Sinners are being convicted and converted and the saints are being comforted and encouraged. We have been working with a lot of the saints down here and God has really blessed the outreaches.

But I wanted to quickly respond to this thread.

------------------

We can never have absolute perfection, only moral perfection.

Moral perfection is not when you have perfect knowledge, but having a perfect intention. A perfect intention is what the bible calls a pure heart, or a perfect heart; which consists of a person loving God and loving neighbor.

We all fall short of the infinite perfection of God. In order to have infinite perfection, you need to have infinite knowledge and infinite ability. [b][u]And we will ALWAYS fall short of the infinite perfection of God. We will never be infinitely perfect in this life or the next.[/u][/b] We will never be anything but finite, God alone is infinite.

But because we have finite knowledge and finite ability, we can only have finite perfection, which simply consists in loving to the best of your knowledge and loving to the best of your ability. The man who loves to the best of his knowledge, and the man who loves to the best of his ability, if blameless and faultless. And the law demands nothing else from us but to love to the best of our knowledge and to the best of our ability, the law demands no more and no less then that.

But all Christians fall short of the glory of God's wisdom (which is infinite), every day we fall short of the glory of God's ability (which is infinite) and we even fall short of God's moral character (which is infinite).

But what we can have is a pure heart, a perfect heart, which is nothing else then a heart of love. What we can have is a finite perfection, which consists in loving instead of sinning. Sin is always avoidable and love is always possible. Sin is always forbidden and love is always commanded.

There is no sin other then violation of the law of love:

- Nothing is sin except that which breaks the law. Sin is transgression of the law.

- And nothing is law except the law of love. "Thou Shalt Love..."

- And nothing fullfills the law of love except love.

Therefore, love fullfills the law - the man who loves God and loves neighbor is not committing any sins, but is a perfect man, without fault or blame.

If being finite was a sin, and God created us finite, then God created sin.

And if anything short of infinite perfection was sin, then we must either be made infinitely perfect to go to Heaven or else God let's sin into Heaven.

But God did not created sin, [b][u]because it is not a sin for us to be finite!!![/u][/b] And we will never be infinite nor does God let sin into Heaven, because finite creatures are only obligated to produce finite perfection. God will let finite creatures into Heaven, because it is not a sin to be finite!

Compared to the infinite God, we will always fall short and be nothing more the finite man. God made us that way. We don't need to repent of being finite, that would be repenting of what God has done.

Rather, we simply must do what God requires us, finite creatures, to do. And God never requires the unreasonable or the impossible, but only commands the good - reasonable - and attainable.

Nothing at all is virtue but love. Nothing is a moral requirement but love. And nothing is sin but violation of the law of love. No man is perfect in knowledge, but we must be perfect in intention - intending the glory of God and the highest well-being of all.

Sin is selfishness, holiness is benevolence. Nothing is sin (vice) but selfish intention, and nothing is holiness (virtue) but a benevolent intention. It all revolves down to that, do you love God and love your neighbor?

[b]ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS ARE PERFECT![/b] that is, all true Christians love God and love their neighbor; love fullfills the law; loving Jesus automaticly includes keeping all His commandments, because He only commands us to love!

Moral perfection (a pure intention/benevolent heart) is not only attainable in this life, but has been attained by all those truly converted - true Christians have a new heart, a pure heart, and therefore love God and neighbor.

Quote:ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS ARE PERFECT! that is, all true Christians love God and love their neighbor; love fullfills the law; loving Jesus automaticly includes keeping all His commandments, because He only commands us to love!

This is where I disagree with you strongly. You cannot make statements like 'all true Christians are perfect' without defining all of the terms. This can only lead to self judgement and self justification. It is this kind of statement that gets holiness preaching a bad reputation. You end up, as you and Finney always do, with justification by sanctification.

_________________

Ron Bailey

Jesse-

Can you please elaborate on how some well known professing christians on SI, whom you know personally and seem to have been supporting the doctrine of, claim to have been saved for some time and then to only have entered into perfection recently as a secondary work of grace.

In Christ - Jim

No, he isn't. What is doing is creating circular definition in which a Christian is defined by his perfection. I believe strongly in Christian Perfection, but I reject the absolutism of Finney and Jesse. The inevitable consequence is that we judge whether or not a man is a 'Christian' by the perceived perfection of his walk.

If there were no difference between alive in the Spirit and walking in the Spirit Paul could not have written...

[color=0033FF]If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25 NKJV)[/color]

There is a difference between being and doing. unless you are a follower of Finner, as is Jesse.

_________________

Ron Bailey

I have a dictionary in python which has 48326 keys of length 64-bits. I would like to create a minimum perfect hash for this list of keys. (I don't want to have to wait for a few days to calculate the MPH so i am ok with it mapping to a 16 bit hash also)

The objective is to eventually port this dictionary to C as an array which contains the dict values and the index is calculated by the Minimum perfect hash function taking key as input . I cannot use external hashing libraries in the C port of the application I am building

EDITAs suggested in comments I looked at Steve Hanov's Algo and modified the hash function to take a 64 bit integer (changing values of the FNV Prime and offset as per this wiki page)

The above produces two lists with 50k entries each; the values in the first table are (boolean, integer) tuples with the integers in the range [0, tablesize) (in theory the values could range up to 2^16 but I'd be very surprised if it ever took 65k+ attempts to find a slot arrangement for your data). Your table size is < 50k, so the above arrangement makes it possible to store the entries in this list in 4 bytes (bool and short make 3, but alignment rules add one byte padding) when expressing this as a C array.