flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Which came first: Apple's Finder or Microsoft's Explorer?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
I checked revolution's website and feel I could have done more looking but I'm lazy.


Last edited by typedef on 24 Feb 2015, 03:20; edited 3 times in total
Post 23 Feb 2015, 14:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HaHaAnonymous



Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1180
Location: Unknown
HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]


Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 17:52; edited 1 time in total
Post 23 Feb 2015, 15:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
If all possible algorithms already exist then where are all the undiscovered ones? Do they exist in someone's brain just waiting to be found?

How do you define "exist" in the context of an algorithm? It is only a concept, not a physical thing.

Do all contexts exist simultaneously and perpetually merely waiting to be used?
Post 23 Feb 2015, 15:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
very interesting. create, or discover,

assumption and definition on exist, line on proof or cross fingers.

what is finder, and when is explorer,
Post 23 Feb 2015, 15:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
revolution wrote:

HaHaAnonymous wrote:
The thing to be found/explored came first. As you can only explore a thing after finding it, then the finder came first, obviously.

Additional info:
In this world, you do not create nothing. You just discover, find or transform.

Then, it is wrong to say:
I have created an algorithm. No, you did not create it, you have just discovered it.
It existed way before you found it.
And if it already existed, there is a very high chance of other people discovered before you.

You should say: I have discovered an algorithm.

P.S. You cannot reply or quote the additional information in a post. You can do it, but do not expect an answer.

If all possible algorithms already exist then where are all the undiscovered ones? Do they exist in someone's brain just waiting to be found?

How do you define "exist" in the context of an algorithm? It is only a concept, not a physical thing.

Do all contexts exist simultaneously and perpetually merely waiting to be used? You are truly an idiot.


lol.
Post 23 Feb 2015, 15:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
typedef, please don't misquote me. I didn't call HaHaAnonymous an idiot, nor did I quote HaHaAnonymous's post.
Post 23 Feb 2015, 15:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
HaHaAnonymous



Joined: 02 Dec 2012
Posts: 1180
Location: Unknown
HaHaAnonymous
[ Post removed by author. ]


Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 17:52; edited 1 time in total
Post 23 Feb 2015, 16:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8885
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
how about,
they already exists before they are created, =) and that is trillion zillion and billion idk, you just imagine the biggest infinity years ago,

we just rediscover those streams of bits.

if everything is here before it is here,
Post 23 Feb 2015, 16:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
revolution wrote:
If all possible algorithms already exist then where are all the undiscovered ones? Do they exist in someone's brain just waiting to be found?

How do you define "exist" in the context of an algorithm? It is only a concept, not a physical thing.

Do all [concepts] exist simultaneously and perpetually merely waiting to be used?
It's too philosophical to actually answer, but I tend to think yes. It's easier to think about math in this way, from the perspective of an alien race. Any alien race would need to count (natural numbers). The operation of addition being a natural extension on the normal successor function. The operations of subtraction, multiplication, and division being similarly natural. Then eventually integers, because subtraction sometimes doesn't result in a positive and the rationals because division sometimes isn't an integer. Then they would find pi or sqrt(2) and realize it is not a rational, so they get the the reals. Then they extend their real line by looking at the cross products (the Euclidean plane and 3d space). Since the Euclidean metric is a natural way of looking at real space, they would start with that and develop the concept of metric spaces. And from metric spaces they would abstract topology. Similarly, for abstract algebra, the axioms of that are all represented in the operations on the rationals.

Essentially, the argument I'm making is that all of our math (that I know of) follows from abstractions and generalizations of the natural numbers, and that these extensions and generalizations are natural in the sense that they are goal directed. We see a problem in with the integers, so we extend them to the rationals to solve the problem. We see that matrix multiplication, like rotations in 3D, are not commutative, so we generalize a theory of operations that don't commute.

Computing seems to be similarly preexisting, like we're discovering things. The Turing machine is, as far as we know, (maybe we know this for sure, IDK) the most powerful finitely describable computing machine. All attempts to make something more powerful have been reduced to being equivalent with it. Maybe the aliens describe it differently, but their description will very likely be equivalent to ours in terms of what is computable and what isn't.
Post 23 Feb 2015, 17:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Tyler wrote:
Essentially, the argument I'm making is that all of our math (that I know of) follows from abstractions and generalizations of the natural numbers, and that these extensions and generalizations are natural in the sense that they are goal directed.
You're right at this point but, in fact, our natural numbers aren't so natural as it seems at first glance. They are abstractions taken from the basic need of counting things that, attention please, aren't countable at all. Have you ever seen two objects that are absolutely identical? Of course not. So the idea of such simple number as two is a rough idealization of the real situations. To make such a simple step as adding one to one we have to "depersonalize" every object, devoid it of its individual features. If you think about the material world in terms of uniqueness, you can't build mathematics. Our science has roots in abstraction, i.e., in fact, in the initial activity of reduction things to their chosen features.

We should rather start from the other "end of the stick" here: only "natural" numbers are those that are real and transcendental ones, i.e. π, e etc. because starting from the natural numbers we always end in the formulas that contain such real constants.

That's obviously heresy, I know, but that's exactly I discovered for myself thinking about the theme for some time. Wink

Leopold Kronecker is basically wrong stating that
God made the integers, all the rest is the work of man.
because only "created" numbers are the real ones (or maybe better complex ones or maybe even better quaternions...). Wink
Post 23 Feb 2015, 19:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I'm not so sure that countability requires identicalness. Confused Is is not about definitions? If we define something loosely enough then it could encompass many different things and thus allow us to count them. Example: "Animals with two eyes" are countable but we don't expect them to all be identical. Just the word "animals" on its own is ambiguous and is a very loose definition, but in a certain contexts it can be clear what is meant.
Post 24 Feb 2015, 06:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
Tyler wrote:

revolution wrote:
I'm not so sure that countability requires identicalness. Confused Is is not about definitions? If we define something loosely enough then it could encompass many different things and thus allow us to count them. Example: "Animals with two eyes" are countable but we don't expect them to all be identical. Just the word "animals" on its own is ambiguous and is a very loose definition, but in a certain contexts it can be clear what is meant.

Your mama so old. Her last name is asaurus

You guys play nice now. lol Very Happy
Post 24 Feb 2015, 13:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tyler wrote:
revolution wrote:
Do all [concepts] exist simultaneously and perpetually merely waiting to be used?
Actually I did mean contexts. But I suppose that concepts could also be valid in that sentence.
Post 24 Feb 2015, 14:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17270
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
typedef: A "your mama" joke? The '00s called and want their text back.
Post 24 Feb 2015, 14:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
MHajduk wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Essentially, the argument I'm making is that all of our math (that I know of) follows from abstractions and generalizations of the natural numbers, and that these extensions and generalizations are natural in the sense that they are goal directed.
You're right at this point but, in fact, our natural numbers aren't so natural as it seems at first glance. They are abstractions taken from the basic need of counting things that, attention please, aren't countable at all. Have you ever seen two objects that are absolutely identical? Of course not. So the idea of such simple number as two is a rough idealization of the real situations. To make such a simple step as adding one to one we have to "depersonalize" every object, devoid it of its individual features. If you think about the material world in terms of uniqueness, you can't build mathematics. Our science has roots in abstraction, i.e., in fact, in the initial activity of reduction things to their chosen features.
The object's themselves may not be countable, but we have discrete categories in our mind that are. If I have two apples, I have two distinct objects that aren't exactly equal, but they both fit the category "apple", so I have two apple. Medias of exchange are a perfect example of us ignoring the distinctness of items, where what the item itself is matters none at all and all of the object's value comes from the category we place the item in. A physical Euro is a useless piece of paper, but because we place it in the homogenous category of "money" or "Euro", it has value. (Actually, if you like Carl Menger, it has value because we expect others to value it tomorrow. But all of this presupposes the category of media of exchange.)

But again, when we start talking about categories and stuff, we're getting into philosophy (epistemology).

I get your point with pi and e being fundamental to nature. I guess I may be too strongly anchored to a view of looking at how math actually was developed. (A sort of theoretical history of how it must have happened.) E.g. A caveman had one apple, found another, then had S(1)=2 apples. Then he wondered what would happen if he found 3 more, then realized he have S(S(S(2)))=5 and invented the concept of iterative application of the S function (i.e. addition). Then he ate one and discovered the inverse of S, then ate two more and discovered subtraction. And so on, you get the idea.
Post 24 Feb 2015, 21:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
revolution wrote:
typedef: A "your mama" joke? The '00s called and want their text back.

Image
Post 24 Feb 2015, 22:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.