Hello,


More of my philosophy about scalability and Gödel's incompleteness theorem and more..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics only applies to sufficiently strong systems. It is not applicable to systems like Presburger arithmetic and first-order logic.

But FOL(First-order logic) in mathematics is not all-powerful by any means, and it has
the following disadvantages:

1- It has no concept of time
2- hard to do arithmetic
3- Can't do beliefs --"If he believes this then surely he must believe
that" is often wrong in everyday life; also surprising mathematical
results.
4- Can't have variables with set values: "All functions are boring"
turns out to be a 2nd-order, not 1st-order statement.

So first-order logic is not scalable, so i think we can not avoid the
problem of Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics, but notice that the Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics says the following:

"For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate
its own consistency."

So notice carefully that it says that there will always exist in those systems statements that are "true" that we can not prove, so then
we can not demonstrate the consistency of those systems, but
i think that those systems remain "really" "useful" for us.

More of my philosophy about civilization and specialization of our today world..

Here is my new proverb:

"I think what is happening in the West and other parts of the world,
it is that individuals are becoming too stupid, since it is the way of specialization that is required, since the individuals are specialized in there jobs so that to enhance much more the efficiency and productivity as a society or as group, but this
specialization is a weakness that is making individuals too stupid, but we can become smart working as a group or as a society using the tools of internet etc."

I think i am smart and here is my new proverb:

"The most important disadvantage of education today, it is that we are learning the students, but we are neglecting to efficiently learn to students how to learn."

This is one of the basis of my philosophy below, and read about it
in my following thoughts:

I think i am smart, and i think you can be more confident with me, since
i think i am not too specialized(Since you have to read my below proverb about it), since here is what i have done:

1- I have gotten my university level Diploma in Microelectronics and
informatics.
2- I have studied 1 year of applied mathematics at university of
Montreal Canada and i have succeeded it.
3- I have also studied operational research
4- I have also studied network administration and i have worked
as a network administrator
5- I am also an inventor of many scalable algorithms and algorithms
and i have invented some powerful software tools for parallelism.
6- I have studied more web software development with Perl, Javascript
and CGI and FCGI and ODBC using SQL etc. and i have worked in the
past as a web software developer.
7- I have worked as a software developer consultant
etc. etc.

You can read more about my education and my way of doing here:

And here is more proof of the fact that i have invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/V9Go8fbF10k

I invite you to look at the following beautiful photo Gunnersbury Writing Desk in a beautiful wood:

https://www.wayfair.ca/furniture/pdp/astoria-grand-gunnersbury-writing-desk-astg6385.html

So i think i am smart, and when i look at the above photo of this
beautiful Gunnersbury Writing Desk made of beautiful wood, it is
like an efficient philosophy for me, since i am seeing the pattern with my fluid intelligence, since having this Gunnersbury Writing Desk in a beautiful wood, it is like living near the beautiful of the mother nature, and it is like an abstraction or it
is like an efficient simple language, since it is like we are bringing the beautiful of mother nature like a beautiful tree made of beautiful wood into our house, so it makes our house really beautiful and it makes us more happy, here is some photos of
them:

https://www.thecoolist.com/most-beautiful-trees/

So this kind of philosophy is like using smartly a "lever" to move a heavy or firmly fixed load, since as you notice that when you have this
beautiful Gunnersbury Writing Desk made of beautiful wood, you are not bringing all a beautiful forest of beautiful trees made of wood or all a beautiful tree made of wood of mother into your house, so it permits you to like easily lift your problems and
solve them and be much more happy, and i think it is the right philosophy, since so that to be much more happy you have to know how to efficiently find those kind of simple levers that permits you to be much more happy and use them smartly, and here is
another lever that can be made simple that you can use smartly, read about it in my following proverb:

"Resourcefulness is one of the most important things, and it is a skill,
and the good news is: this skill can be learned and mastered, and resourcefulness is attained only when we combine the resourceful mindset and skills, so we have to filter out some of the most useful resources that help us, and resourcefulness is also to
know who/what to look for and what to ask, and when ressourcefulness is attained this becomes an engine that permits you to have hope and to be energetic and to be positive in doing what you are doing, since resourcefulness also permits to easy the jobs
for you."

So i think when you understand this smart philosophy you will understand
that using an efficient simple language is also very efficient.

More of my philosophy about technology and mother nature..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that i am also an smart artist, and i invite you to look and listen at the following video of a music of Jean-Michel Jarre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIMVnPA994

So i think i am a smart artist, and i am noticing a smart pattern with
my fluid intelligence in the above music and video of Jean-Michel Jarre,
so the pattern is that the above music of Jean-Michel Jarre is not complete detachment from the beauty of mother nature, since he is using a mixture of the beautiful of mother nature(like the wind or the water as electronic sounds) and the beautiful of
electronic music that is detached from the mother nature, and i think that humans needs and require the two, the beautifulness of mother nature and the beautifulness of electronic music or digital photos and such that are detached from the beautiful of
mother nature, so the beautiful of mother nature is essential for humans, i will give you a quick example so that to notice it:

I invite you to listen at the following beautiful arab song from Algeria:

Ch'hal aâyit mesbar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS6KG2ybOB0&list=RDzS6KG2ybOB0&start_radio=1

And notice how in this beautiful arab music they are using old
music instruments that give beautiful sounds and music that comes from the beautiful of mother nature or that are much nearer from the mother nature than electronic music sounds, so then i think that this arab music and song is like the beautiful of
mother nature. And as
i have just said that the beautiful of mother nature is essential for humans, so i think that there is a difference between my following poems of Love and mathematics, since mathematics is like far away from the beautiful of mother nature, it is like
robots, but my poems of Love are like the beautiful of mother nature, here they are, read them all carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/D4qlWWW-o1s

And about extremist ideologies like white supremacism, i invite you to read my following thoughts about them:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/mjE_2AG1TKQ

More of philosophy about Democracy and the Evolutionary Design methodology..

I will make a logical analogy between software projects and Democracy,
first i will say that because of the today big complexity of software projects, so the "requirements" of those complex software projects are not clear and a lot could change in them, so this is
why we are using an Evolutionary Design methodology with different tools
such as Unit Testing, Test Driven Development, Design Patterns, Continuous Integration, Domain Driven Design, but we have to notice carefully that an important thing in Evolutionary Design methodology is that when those complex software projects grow, we
have first to normalize there growth by ensuring that the complex software projects grow "nicely" and "balanced" by using standards, and second we have to optimize growth of the complex software projects by balancing between the criteria of the easy to
change the complex software projects and the performance of the complex software projects, and third you have to maximize the growth of the complex software projects by making the most out of each optimization, and i think that by logical analogy we can
notice that in Democracy we have also to normalize the growth by not allowing "extremism" or extremist ideologies that hurt Democracy, and we have also to optimize Democracy by for example well balancing between "performance" of the society and in the
Democracy and the "reliability" of helping others like the weakest members of the society among the people that of course respect the laws, and so that to understand more my thoughts of my philosophy about Democracy, i invite you to read them here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/vlDWhmf-MIM

And about extremist ideologies like white supremacism, i invite you to read my following thoughts about them:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/mjE_2AG1TKQ

More of my philosophy about entropy and about how morality is universal..

I think i am smart, and i am explaining below why morality is universal,
but as you have just noticed i have just said that so that to say
that morality is universal, it requires from us to know about the requirements such as why to be a global world etc., so there must be a level of consciousness, other than that i will make you feel and see much more that morality is universal since i am
seeing it:

So take for example the human imperfections or world imperfections,
i say that it is because we have those imperfections that also we have morality, and those imperfections causes entropy(A state of disorder and disorganization), this is why we have to be more and more perfection so that to maintain order and so that to
attain perfection of being much more perfect or perfect, for example humans are working in there everyday life so that to also maintain order or so that to become perfection or much more perfection, and maintaining order is also that we are perfectioning
so that to not to become disorder.

More of my philosophy about why morality is universal..

I think i am a smart philosopher, and i will now explain why
morality is universal:

So take a look at the thing that we call "time", so you can naively look at our everyday life and say that time is not relative, but
you can like Einstein analyse it and prove that time is relative,
and morality is the same, so when you naively look at it you will
think that morality is relative, since you can notice that for example there is many countries with many laws and rules, but when you analyse it you will notice that the goal of morality that we become perfect or much more perfect pushes us forward
towards more and more perfection since we have to solve our problems such as our many imperfections, it is also why morality is "progressive", so then the essence of morality become that morality is progressing towards the goal that is that we become
perfect or much more perfect, so then the other details of morality are abstracted, so then those acts of humans perfectioning or perfecting towards a much more perfect world or perfect world and that are also codified as morality become that morality is
universal, since also we can take this essence of morality as the most important thing.

More of my philosophy about the superhuman of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche..

I think i am smart philosopher, and i will be more precise in my logical proof of why the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche believed, like the philosopher Spinoza, that morality is not universal, so notice carefully
how the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has wanted to construct a new type of man that is a superhuman in his view and this superhuman in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery over his emotions and it is a superhuman who
takes joy in simply existing, so as you are noticing that the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is an inferior philosopher since he wanted to apply the morality of the strong to the morality of the weak in not wise manner, also you can
notice it more by him saying the following and recognizing that
there is different types of morals, and here is his saying:

"It is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak."

That means in french:

"C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.",

So the above saying of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is a proof
that he recognized that there is different kinds of morals like the morals of the slaves or the weak and morals of the strong humans or the strong. Read more my following thoughts about it and about Stoicism and existentialism and about how i am
explaining that the essence of morality is universal:

More of my philosophy about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and more..

I have just looked at the following video about:

NIETZSCHE - L'exaltation de la vie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVVtxlg_oE

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that the
philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is not good, since
he says that: "C'est la volonté de puissance qui doit s'exprimer, non
pas la morale des esclaves ou des faibles.", that means in english: "It
is the will to power that must be expressed, not the morals of the
slaves or the weak.", and he said that it needs to construct a new man
that we call the superhuman, but I think that i am a philosopher that is
smart and i am understanding the philosophy of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, and i think that it is an inferior philosophy, because it
seeks to construct the superhumans from humans and this superhuman in
the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is a superhuman that has mastery
over his emotions and it is a superhuman who takes joy in simply
existing, so as you are noticing that it is an inferior philosophy,
because how can you be able to take joy in simply existing ? so as you
are noticing it is illogical and it is as illogical as Stoicism(read my
below thoughts about Stoicism) and i think that it is a violent
philosophy as Stoicism, this is why the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsch
is a failure as Stoicism, and here is what i said about Stoicism:

More of my philosophy about my philosophy and about Stoicism and Existentialism..

I invite you to read this very interesting article about philosophy:

Why philosophers could be the ones to transform your 2020

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200114-why-philosophers-could-be-the-ones-to-transform-your-2020

And notice that it says the following:

“The Stoics suggest that what’s most important in order to lead a good
life is internal rather than external. It’s about developing the right character, the right state of mind,”

I think i am a philosopher that is "smart", so i make you notice the
logical bug in the above saying about Stoicism, and it is that
developing the right character and the right state of the mind in
Stoicism needs the cultural side that also comes from the external
reality and hence from the "purpose" and the "meaning of life", and we
can notice that Stoicism is not so smart, because how can we develop self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions
and such without the necessary requirements that have to give enough
hope or a meaning of life that gives the necessary self-control and
fortitude? so this is why i think that Stoicism as a philosophy is a
failure, so what's about existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre ? Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in
french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, but i think that
this claim is not so logical, since it is like a debate that asks the
question of: Wich is more important, the genetical side or cultural
side?, and we have to notice that the essence or nature of a human is
"not" enough and it needs for example a meaning of human life and a
purpose etc. so then notice that existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, and
like in absurdism of the philosopher Albert Camus, says that human life
is absurd, but here again my new philosophy says that human life is not
absurd, and read it below.

My philosophy about the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre and more..

I invite you to look at the following video about philosophy:

SARTRE - Le regard des autres

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIM41TnDHI

I have just noticed by looking at the above video, that it is lacking,
since first you have to understand the following:

Jean-Paul Sartre said that: "Existence precedes essence" or in french: "L'existence précède l'essence", and it is the central claim of existentialism of the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

But i think people are not understanding the philosopher Jean-Paul
Sartre, since the functionality of our essence is also our genetics that predetermines to a certain level what is our existence, so the essence
that is our genetics is also important, but since the philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre was a communist, he has wanted to give much more "hope"
by saying: "Existence precedes essence", and i think this also means that humans are by essence free, and this also means that the human nurture
is much more important than the human nature, but it is not truth, so i
think that Jean-Paul Sartre has made a big error by saying so. And
Jean-Paul Sartre has also accepted the views of the philosopher Albert
Camus about the absurdism of existence, but i am a philosopher and here
again i am not in accordance with it, since i say that human existence is not absurd, and read my below thoughts to understand my philosophy:

How can you effectively "measure" how to appreciate human life ?

I think the most important thing is to know that we can measure it
relatively or absolutely, so wich one of the absolute or relative
measure is the right way of measuring ? so now you have to know that
i think that the meaning of human life can not be measured like
absolutely like was doing the philosopher Albert Camus since you will
start to say by measuring like absolutely that human life is "absurd",
and this is not good at all, so now you have to understand the very
basis of philosophy, that philosophy has to give you the will to survive
or the will to live, so then you logically notice that we can say that a
human is smart if he is smart relatively to the distribution of
smartness of humans or such, but if you start to measure it like
absolutely by saying that the smart human is not smart when you look at
all or measuring it by all the difficulties and constraints of our world
or of our universe, i think it is not the right way to do in philosophy,
since you have to give the will to people so that they survive and so
that they live, also you have to give a meaning to human life as
i am doing it in my philosophy(read about it below), so now i
can finally say that you are understanding the how to answer the
above philosophical question since you have to measure how
to appreciate human life "relatively" and "not" like absolutely by
looking at how our past humanity was much less advanced than our today
humanity etc. and so the other important thing is to also understand the
basis of my philosophy by reading it below:

I think that my philosophy is more smart, since in my philosophy
i am also explaining that the day permits to understand the night and
human life is like the alternance of the day and night that brings
beauty, since human life is difficulties and suffering that also permit
us to appreciate much more human life or that permits us to appreciate
much more our kind of civilization and i say in my philosophy that it
also gives more intensity to pleasures of life, so my philosophy doesn't
look like the other philosophies, so i invite you to holistically
understand my philosophy by carefully reading it here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

And read my other thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/8jzgRGMOEHs


More of my philosophy about the ideas of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and more..

I invite you to read the following article about the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

The Ideas Of Friedrich Nietzsche

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ideas-friedrich-nietzsche-dr-marcel-pflug-mba

I think i am a smart philosopher, and i am noticing that the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer are inferior philosophers, and i will explain as following:

Notice in the above article the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche has a problem with morality, and he thought, like the philosopher Spinoza, that morality is not universal and he also thought that since for example for the strong human the good becomes the
brave, powerful, rich, and strong, so he thought that the strong human will have the tendency to discriminate the weak people, so then the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche thought that morality was not working, but i think that the philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche was an inferior philosopher since i think i am a philosopher that is smart and i am explaining that the essence of morality is universal and progressive, read my thoughts below about it to understand, and also i am saying that we have not to be
pessimistic as the philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and Arthur Schopenhauer, since i have just spoken about the value of specialization that gives a self-esteem to the individuals of a society and i am explaining in my below thoughts of my new philosophy
how we have to be optimistic about human life, and i invite you to read my below thoughts so that to understand:

More of my philosophy about universal Love and beauty..

I think i am smart, and i think i am a wise type of person,

Now i can ask the following philosophical questions:

Does Love is subjective ?

Does Beauty is subjective ?

Here is my answer:

I think i am smart, and i will say that you have to know how to measure
it, so you have to know how to "prioritize" by weights of importance,
i mean that that so that to know about beauty, there is two ways of
doing it, first there is the inferior way of doing it by looking at beauty superficially , and it becomes an a not exact appearance and a not so good measure, and there is the second way that is like scientific
and it is to measure beauty with our smartness, by prioritizing and say that the smartests and wise persons among us have to measure
beauty and Love and know if we can calling them beauty and Love and if
we can accept them as beauty and Love, so then by measuring it this way with smartness and wisdom we can then say that Love and beauty don't become subjective, and as you have just noticed yesterday i said that Love looks like artificial intelligence,
since it needs an action that merits a reward (as Love), and you can know more about it by reading my following new proverb:

Here is my new proverb:

"We can ask of from where comes the attachment of Love between
a mother and her son ? so i think i am smart and i will say
that it comes from the fact that it is like a reward, that the son
is loving or is being the son and the mother is giving a good reward like giving him more security or giving him food to eat, so as you are noticing that this rule can be applied to consumerism, since
you can use the same rule with your consumers in a smart
way, for example by giving the impression to your consumers that
you take care of there security by learning them with easy or the like, and then the consumers will love you much more and will be attracted by you."

So then we can say much more precisely that Love needs an action and
its reward (as Love), but there is individual love that is like a process of local optimization and there is universal Love that is a process of global optimization in a society that also can comes with a "margin" that makes us also be a level of
tolerance on this or that action. And notice with me that it looks like the optimization of particle swarm optimization (PSO) in artificial intelligence, since the local optimization of PSO is like the process of individual Love, and the global
optimization of PSO is like the process of the global Love in a society, and of course particle swarm optimization (PSO) in artificial intelligence is like Reinforcement Learning in AI(artificial intelligence), since in PSO in artificial intelligence we
have the actions of the members of the population of PSO that searches for the optimal value that are found that are then rewarded by making them the
values that optimizes further and further towards the global optimum.

And here is my thoughts about artificial intelligence:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/P9OTDTiCZ44

More of my philosophy about the too much individualism of the West..

I invite you to look at the following known psychologist that
is talking about self-esteem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f3qyNNtpQk

So i am smart and i am not in accordance with the psychologist in the above video since he is saying that self-esteem comes from comparing your value with the others in a society, but i think it is a too much individualistic definition, since the value
of an individual of a society comes also from the fact that the society also gives a certain level of importance to its parts that are the individuals that constitutes the society and that are specialized in this or that job, and this "specialization" is
also important for the society and it has a value in a society, so then the individual has a value and importance in a society that gives him a self-esteem.

More of my philosophy about beauty..

I will ask a philosophical question:

Is a beautiful women beautiful ?

So it depends on if you are a wise man type of person or not..

Since i think that you have not to rush in like a fool and think that
that the women that is beautiful is beautiful, since the wise man
says that it first needs "wisdom" so that to also appreciate beauty or so that to appreciate pleasures of human life, so i think that the wise man type of person is like the way, so read my following thoughts
so that to understand much more clearly:

Here is my other just new proverb:

"I think i am a wise type of person and i say that happiness comes from an efficient way of thinking or from imagination, and not from reality and not from pleasures of reality or pleasures of life, since reality when you look at it from the more and
more details, it comes with too much imperfections, so the efficient way of thinking or of imagination has to not be "complete" detachment like in Taoism or Buddhism , since i think by being complete detachment like in Taoism or buddhism you will make
the engine that pushes you forward towards more and more perfection much more weak, so then you have to be like the right dose of detachment
that makes you like well balanced so that it makes you appreciate our world much more, and so that it makes you appreciate much more pleasures of life or so that it makes you appreciate much more life, so then it makes you much more happy. And of course
it is inherent to my proverb that when you realize that reality, when you look at it from the more and more details, comes with too much imperfections and that you can not change for the better quickly, you become much more wise with much more patience
etc. And i will explain more my new philosophy in my next book that will also extend with much more new creative ideas."

More of my philosophy of what is Love..

I think Love looks like artificial intelligence, since it needs an action that merits a reward, but i think that you have also to know how to play it smartly and "wisely", but we have not to be pessimistic since i think that the best way to attain Love
is by being more and more wisdom so that to become much more wise or wise, since i am really convinced that by being much more wise or wise you will start to appreciate much more human life in a smart way and be much more happy as i am doing it, and you
will start to know how to be a wise type of Love as i am doing it, since i think i am a wise type of person. And so that to know more how i am wise, you can also look at my following poems of Love that looks like my personality since i am also a
gentleman type of person:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ITE99pf3KHA

And since i am saying above that Love looks like the action and its reward in artificial intelligence, you can read more my following thoughts about artificial intelligence so that to understand more:

And here is my thoughts about artificial intelligence:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/P9OTDTiCZ44

Here is my new proverb:

"We can ask of from where comes the attachment of Love between
a mother and her son ? so i think i am smart and i will say
that it comes from the fact that it is like a reward, that the son
is loving or is being the son and the mother is giving a good reward like giving him more security or giving him food to eat, so as you are noticing that this rule can be applied to consumerism, since
you can use the same rule with your consumers in a smart
way, for example by giving the impression to your consumers that
you take care of there security by learning them with easy or the like, and then the consumers will love you much more and will be attracted by you."

You can read all my other proverbs below:

More of my philosophy about money and about the meaning and the purpose of human life..

I think i am smart and i say that Money is not a good and powerful engine, since you can be stupid and think that it is a powerful engine,
but when you are a smart philosopher like me you will realize that
thinking that Money is a powerful engine is like the big mistake that
is making the Taoist Philosophy of Lieh Tzu by thinking that the action itself is sufficient as an engine, and read my thoughts below about it, since the question is how to make humans more "strong" and "energetic" and "positive" so that they be pushed
forward towards more and more perfection. So this is why i am talking in my new philosophy about those kind of powerful "engines".

More of my philosophy about the meaning and the purpose of human life..

I think i am smart, and as you have just noticed i am not speaking

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-10-01, Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

More of my philosophy about scalability and Gödel's incompleteness theorem and more..

Scalability is only applicable when you don't have synchronization...
That has nothing to do with Godel as he just explains that to solve
something algortihmically you have infinite number of combinations,
which means no classic computer can make algorithm for making
algorithms,,,,

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,



More of my philosophy about scalability and Gödel's incompleteness theorem and more and more of my thoughts..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..


I think i am smart and i say that the Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics only applies to sufficiently strong systems. It is not applicable to systems like Presburger arithmetic and first-order logic.

But FOL(First-order logic) in mathematics is not all-powerful by any means, and it has the following disadvantages:

1- It has no concept of time
2- hard to do arithmetic
3- Can't do beliefs --"If he believes this then surely he must believe
that" is often wrong in everyday life; also surprising mathematical
results.
4- Can't have variables with set values: "All functions are boring"
turns out to be a 2nd-order, not 1st-order statement.

So first-order logic is not scalable, so i think we can not avoid the
problem of Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics, but notice that the Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics says the following:

"For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate
its own consistency."

So notice carefully that the second incompleteness theorem is so problematic since it prevent us from scaling with a more sophisticated mathematical system than first-order logic, so i think it is really problematic.

More of my philosophy about what is smartness and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, and you are noticing it more and more,
but i have to explain something really important:

So when i ask you to define smartly what is smartness, you will
say that smartness is the genetical side of smartness and it is
also the skill from the cultural side, but i think that it is
too much abstraction, since when you are smart you will notice
that the pattern that you have to find with your fluid intelligence
can be a pattern that you can not completely see or you can not see
since you have not been able to be at the right place and at the right time, so it can become a constraint that prevent you from finding the
pattern with your fluid intelligence, so then even if you are really smart, your smartness that is genetical and cultural is not sufficient,
so then smartness can come from other sides such as a hidden pattern
that you can obtain by being lucky such as by being at the
right place and at the right time. So for example take
a look at me, i am not only genetically smart, since i have
also passed some certified IQ tests on internet and i have
scored above 115 IQ in them, but i am also culturally smart and i am
also this lucky guy that has discovered other smart patterns
by being at the right place and at the right time.

More of my philosophy about money and about happiness and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart and here is my just new proverb:

"Passion is not a good engine since it is much less powerful,
so if for example you have passion for sex, then can you make sex
a passion that guides you ? no, so then it is not a general or
much more general way of doing, so i think that individual
happiness comes from the satisfaction of self-improvement,
and does money = happiness? I think that big money doesn't
add much individual happiness to having individually enough money
( look at the following video from a techlead so that to notice it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kQmeIsCVs ), but big money
can add much to societal happiness, and big money builds empires."

In my above smart new proverb , i am saying that individual happiness comes from satisfaction of self-improvement, and I invite you to read
my following thoughts of my philosophy that talks about it and
about how you become self-confidence and how you become this
positive energy and positive energy of hope:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/RNxOWBpkHkM

And here is my other new proverb that talks about how individual happiness comes from satisfaction of self-improvement:

"When you walk towards a goal in life it's like you walk down a forest
path towards a goal, but when you walk this forest path you can look at
flowers and pretty trees and be happier or you can also learn more and
have more experience which is useful while walking in the forest, then
life is like this, you can go through it towards goals, but going
through it you can also have pleasures that make you happier and you can
learn more and have more experience and that is useful to you, and i
think this conception of life makes you more positive."

And here is the translation in french of my new proverb:

"Quand tu marches vers un objectif dans la vie, c'est comme tu marches
dans un chemin de forêt vers un objectif, mais quand tu marches dans ce
chemin de forêt tu peux regarder des fleurs et de jolis arbres et être
plus joyeux ou tu peux aussi en apprendre plus et avoir plus
d'expérience qui est utile en marchant dans la forêt, alors la vie
ressemble à cela, tu peux la traverser vers des objectifs, mais en la traversant tu peux avoir aussi des plaisirs qui te rendent plus heureux
et tu peux apprendre plus et avoir plus d'experience et cela t'est
utile, et je pense que cette conception de la vie te rend plus positif."

So you have to understand that my proverb above is like
trying to well balance between, in one side, our strong human desire for success and the fear or the disliking of failure to attain the goal,
and, in the other side, i am showing in my new proverb the good sides or advantages or the pros of walking our lives towards the goal or goals
even if failure or failures happen(s), and i think this conception of
life of my proverb permits to be more positive, also you have to align
the usefulness of the utility with the global mission of the country or
global world"


More of my philosophy of what is it that i am really smart and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, but what is it that i am really smart ?
is it that i am arrogant by saying it ? not at all ! since my saying of "i am really smart" can "appear" to a stupid person that i mean that i am very smart, but it is not ! since the being really smart in my saying means also that it can be that i am of
115 IQ, so that means that
i am not arrogant by saying that i am really smart, so you have to understand my following proverb about it that i have invented quickly so that to understand, here it is:

"There is an important difference between the appearance of a reality
and the truth of a reality, this is why in science you have not to be
confident with the appearances, since in science you have to understand
the truth, so, to be able to understand the truth you have to know how
to be patience before understanding the truth and not to rush in like a
fool by lack of wisdom "

And here are my new proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LjeVQZFhK3E

And here are some other proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

Here is one of my interesting just new proverbs:

"Human vitality comes from intellectual openness and intellectual
openness also comes from divergent thinking and you have to well balance divergent thinking with convergent thinking so that to converge towards
the global optimum of efficiency and not get stuck on a local optimum of efficiency, and this kind of well balancing makes the good creativity."

And i will explain more my proverb so that you understand it:

I think that divergent thinking is thought process or method used to
generate creative ideas by exploring many possible solutions, but notice
that we even need openness in a form of economic actors that share ideas
across nations and industries (and this needs globalization) that make
us much more creative and that's good for economy, since you can easily
notice that globalization also brings a kind of optimality to divergent thinking, and also you have to know how to balance divergent thinking
with convergent thinking, since if divergent thinking is much greater
than convergent thinking it can become costly in terms of time, and if
the convergent thinking is much greater than divergent thinking you can
get stuck on local optimum of efficiency and not converge to a global
optimum of efficiency.

Here is the other one of my proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

"Resourcefulness is one of the most important things, and it is a skill,
and the good news is: this skill can be learned and mastered, and resourcefulness is attained only when we combine the resourceful mindset
and skills, so we have to filter out some of the most useful resources
that help us, and resourcefulness is also to know who/what to look for
and what to ask, and when ressourcefulness is attained this becomes an
engine that permits you to have hope and to be energetic and to be
positive in doing what you are doing, since resourcefulness also permits
to easy the jobs for you."

And here is the other one of my proverbs that i have just invented quickly:

"When you walk towards a goal in life it's like you walk down a forest
path towards a goal, but when you walk this forest path you can look at
flowers and pretty trees and be happier or you can also learn more and
have more experience which is useful while walking in the forest, then
life is like this, you can go through it towards goals, but going
through it you can also have pleasures that make you happier and you can
learn more and have more experience and that is useful to you, and i
think this conception of life makes you more positive."

And here is the translation in french of my new proverb:

"Quand tu marches vers un objectif dans la vie, c'est comme tu marches
dans un chemin de forêt vers un objectif, mais quand tu marches dans ce
chemin de forêt tu peux regarder des fleurs et de jolis arbres et être
plus joyeux ou tu peux aussi en apprendre plus et avoir plus
d'expérience qui est utile en marchant dans la forêt, alors la vie
ressemble à cela, tu peux la traverser vers des objectifs, mais en la traversant tu peux avoir aussi des plaisirs qui te rendent plus heureux
et tu peux apprendre plus et avoir plus d'experience et cela t'est
utile, et je pense que cette conception de la vie te rend plus positif."

So you have to understand that my proverb above is like
trying to well balance between, in one side, our strong human desire for success and the fear or the disliking of failure to attain the goal,
and, in the other side, i am showing in my new proverb the good sides or advantages or the pros of walking our lives towards the goal or goals
even if failure or failures happen(s), and i think this conception of
life of my proverb permits to be more positive, also you have to align
the usefulness of the utility with the global mission of the country or
global world"

More of my philosophy about how i am smart in computing and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart since i can also rapidly think like
an architect, since i think that i am smart by like finding the
the best path, like the best path of what is the big weaknesses of reverse engineering that permit us to fight much more efficiently
reverse engineering, also i am finding the best path that finds
the big defect of the Go programming language(read about it in my below thoughts), so then you are also understanding this smart way of mine, so for example i will now "rapidly" find the big weaknesses of the new Intel toolkit called OneAPI and i will do
it in a more smart way, so
i will start by making you notice that the big weakness of
message passing of MPI is that it is too low level, since the
very important thing that lacks MPI is also that it lacks higher level datastructures that permit us to use them in a transparent way
across processes and across computer machines, other than
that, the other big weakness of message passing of MPI is that it is not a programming language that provides a unified shared memory with sophisticated data types objects across processes and across computer machines, and it is the big defect of the new
Intel toolkit that we call OneAPI, since notice how it is so low level by providing with just the following memory objects in the unified shared memory across processes and across computer machines, here it is and notice it carefully:

https://oneapi-src.github.io/DPCPP_Reference/model/memory-objects.html


So then the big weakness of the new Intel toolkit called OneAPI
is that it is still too low level as message passing of MPI is too low level.

More of my philosophy about copyrights and about patents and about
reverse engineering and more..

I am really smart, and i will talk more about reverse engineering, so i think that the creative ways to break disassemblers or debuggers or by using source code Obfuscation are not so efficient against reverse engineering, so i will give you my smart way
of doing it, first as i have just told you, that you have to protect your value-added of your code that you want to sell by for example using more difficult or difficult algorithms in a smart way that are more difficult or difficult to understand with
assembler code from machine code, and after that you have to use copyright in a smart way, for example i will use like the following service from a company in Canada that provides a copyright filled and certified by a public notary that is valid for 172
countries, you can read about it here:

http://en.scopyright.ca/

But you have to be smart, since the "patent" that protects an algorithm is not valid in so many countries such as India etc., so the best way is to use a copyright as i am doing it, so that this kind of copyright allows you to fill a lawsuit against
binary code that is stolen from you by asking the one that has stolen from you to show his source code in
a legal lawsuit.

Read my previous thoughts:

I think i am really smart, and i think that the problem with reverse engineering of binary software programs or dynamic or shared libraries is that even if you use artificial intelligence or sophisticated tools of reverse engineering, the main hard
problem for reverse engineering is how to understand the "meaning" of the algorithm, since if the algorithms is difficult , it can be so difficult to understand it with
assembler code, this is the main big weakness of reverse engineering, but of course with reverse engineering you can obtain the assembler from the machine code, so you can then crack the binary code since it is
much less difficult than understanding a difficult algorithm , and after that you can give the binary code that is cracked, but with this kind of way of doing you have to be aware that the cracked binary code can contain a virus, this is why a "
trusthworthy" relationship between a software developer or developers and the customers is so important. And it is my way of doing that is creating a trusthworthy relationship
with my customers and with you here in those newsgroups forums and such.

And read my following previous thoughts:

More of my philosophy about reverse engineering..

Simply pulling a piece of software through a decompiler does not directly yield easily readable code for several reasons.

First of all, names of variables and functions are not kept through the compilation process, so the decompiler will assign generic names. It is much harder to read code that looks like "f8s6ex2(i37zc, sk1eo)" than it is to read "CalculatePrice(articleId,
amount)".

Secondly, a compiler has a variety of optimization tricks that it will use during compilation to make the code more efficient. A decompiler will return this "optimized" code, which will look a lot less readable than the original.

Just compiling the Delphi mode of freepascal source code with optimizations (-O2 and up) and stripping all debug and profile information, and apply smartlinking, will make it almost
un-decompilable. Not only FPC, but also Delphi.

The level of software reverse complexity is different according to different program languages. generally speaking, compiled language reverse engineering is more difficult than interpreted language. in compiled languages, I think that C++ or the Delphi
mode of Freepascal reverse engineering is the most difficult job. why? because it is very hard to transform assembly language into high level language(C++) or to Delphi mode of freepascal as i am also explaining above.

So in reverse engineering there is almost no way to re-create the Delphi mode of freepascal or Delphi source code from the binary.

More of my philosophy about programming languages and about lock-based systems and more of my thoughts..

I think we have to be optimistic about lock-based systems, since race conditions detection can be done in polynomial-time, and it is not NP-hard, and you can notice it by reading the following paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.08857.pdf

Or by reading the following paper:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=f5BXl6nRgAkC&pg=PA421&lpg=PA421&dq=race+condition+detection+and+polynomial+complexity&source=bl&ots=IvxkORGkQ9&sig=ACfU3U2x0fDnNLHP1Cjk5bD_fdJkmjZQsQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKoNvg0MP0AhWioXIEHRQsDJc4ChDoAXoECAwQAw#v=
onepage&q=race%20condition%20detection%20and%20polynomial%20complexity&f=false

So i think we can continu to program in lock-based systems, and about composability of lock-based systems, read my below previous thoughts about it:

More of my philosophy about composability and more..

I have just read quickly the following article about composability,
so i invite you to read it carefully:

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/06/09/the-functional-revolution-in-c/

I am not in accordance with the above article, and i think that the above scientist is programming in Haskell functional language and it is for him the way to composability, since he says that the way of functional programming like Haskell functional
programming is the
the way that allows composability in presence of concurrency, but for him lock-based systems don't allow it, but i don't agree with him, and i will give you the logical proof of it, and here it is, read what is saying an article from ACM that was
written by both Bryan M. Cantrill and Jeff Bonwick from Sun Microsystems:

You can read about Bryan M. Cantrill here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Cantrill

And you can read about Jeff Bonwick here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bonwick

And here is what says the article about composability in the presence of concurrency of lock-based systems:

"Design your systems to be composable. Among the more galling claims of the detractors of lock-based systems is the notion that they are somehow uncomposable:

“Locks and condition variables do not support modular programming,” reads one typically brazen claim, “building large programs by gluing together smaller programs[:] locks make this impossible.”9 The claim, of course, is incorrect. For evidence
one need only point at the composition of lock-based systems such as databases and operating systems into larger systems that remain entirely unaware of lower-level locking.

There are two ways to make lock-based systems completely composable, and each has its own place. First (and most obviously), one can make locking entirely internal to the subsystem. For example, in concurrent operating systems, control never returns to
user level with in-kernel locks held; the locks used to implement the system itself are entirely behind the system call interface that constitutes the interface to the system. More generally, this model can work whenever a crisp interface exists between
software components: as long as control flow is never returned to the caller with locks held, the subsystem will remain composable.

Second (and perhaps counterintuitively), one can achieve concurrency and composability by having no locks whatsoever. In this case, there must be
no global subsystem state—subsystem state must be captured in per-instance state, and it must be up to consumers of the subsystem to assure that they do not access their instance in parallel. By leaving locking up to the client of the subsystem, the
subsystem itself can be used concurrently by different subsystems and in different contexts. A concrete example of this is the AVL tree implementation used extensively in the Solaris kernel. As with any balanced binary tree, the implementation is
sufficiently complex to merit componentization, but by not having any global state, the implementation may be used concurrently by disjoint subsystems—the only constraint is that manipulation of a single AVL tree instance must be serialized."

Read more here:

https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1454462

More of my philosophy about ThreadSanitizer and about Go programming language and more of my thoughts..


I think i am really smart, and here is the second weakness of Go
programming language, so Go programming language is using ThreadSanitizer algorithm in its race detector so that to detect race conditions, but here is the weakness of ThreadSanitizer:

So read carefully the following paper about ThreadSanitizer:

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/35604.pdf

And it says in the conclusion the following:

"ThreadSanitizer uses a new algorithm; it has several modes of operation, ranging from the most conservative mode (which has few false positives but also misses real races) to a very aggressive one (which
has more false positives but detects the largest number of
real races)."

So as you are noticing since the very agressive mode of Threadsanitizer doesn't detect "all" the data races, so then it is a problem, so then CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model can not help Go, since read my below thoughts so that to
understand, so then it is not "scalable", so it is not good, since you can still take a lot of time to verify a big project so that to find the remaining data races that are not detected by ThreadSanitizer.

More of my philosophy about the Go programming language and its big defect and more of my thoughts..

I think i am really smart, and i will make you understand the big defect of Go programming language, and it is that so that to avoid effectively
race conditions with the CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model,
you have to have different memory address spaces for different processes
that are distributed accross different machines or local to a machine, so if you use threads or lightweight thread like is using Go programming language, so then CSP(Communicating sequential processes) model will not work, since in the same memory
address space, you can still have race conditions. So notice carefully how superpascal is doing it by using parallel "processes" with different memory address spaces by reading the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperPascal

Message passing of MPI for distributed programming is doing the same.

More of my philosophy about Superpascal and about CSP(Communicating sequential processes) and more..

I think i am smart, and i am also programming in Object Pascal
of Delphi and Freepascal, and i think i am also a smart "Wirthian" programmer of the Wirthian familly of ALGOL-like languages, since i have programmed in Pascal and i have also programmed in Superpascal(You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/SuperPascal), and
i have programmed in Object Pascal of Delphi and Freepascal, and i know more about Superpascal, that was an interesting enhancement of the pascal language, that brought an enhancement in a form of a "Forall" statement that is like a Parallel For loop,
and that brought an
enhancement in a form of "Channels" that look like Go channels and that permit to code parallel programs, so the Superpascal channels allowed us to program like in CSP(Communicating sequential processes) that is a formal language for describing patterns
of interaction in concurrent systems. And CSP(Communicating sequential processes) is a member of the family of mathematical theories of concurrency known as process algebras, or process calculi, based on message passing via channels, so Superpascal
Channels allowed us to avoid parallel bugs such as race conditions, but i think that those channels can also be used in a more simple way like in the following article, so that they permit to avoid race conditions and that's also i think a much better
enhancement, so read the following article so that to know about the more simple way of using Go channels or Superpascal channels so that to avoid race conditions:

https://fodor.org/blog/go-avoiding-race-conditions/

And so that you get an idea about Superpascal, you can look
at its source code in Freepascal here in Gitub:

https://github.com/octonion/superpascal

So as you notice that Superpascal programming language, that was invented in year 1993, has preceded Go programming language by providing Channels etc. that permit to do parallel programming by avoiding race conditions and such parallel programming bugs.

But you have to know that i am smart and i have also enhanced
Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by inventing the following
Threadpool that scales well and that supports parallel for loop,
you can read about it carefully here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/an-efficient-threadpool-engine-with-priorities-that-scales-very-well

And i have also enhanced Object Pascal of Freepascal and Delphi by
inventing a Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references, you can take a look carefully about it here in my websites:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

So as you notice that i am also an inventor of many scalable algorithms
and algorithms..

More of my philosophy about stack memory allocations and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing..

I think i am smart, and as you are noticing in my below thoughts that
i am abstracting smartly so that to make you understand preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing , other than that i will also give you
an interesting Stack memory allocation algorithm in Delphi and Freepascal so that to use it smartly with my below sophisticated Stackful coroutines Library, so i will extend my sophisticated Stackful coroutines Library so that to support it smartly, and
here it is:

--

var pool: array [1..limit] of integer;
memory: array [min..max] of integer;
top: integer;


procedure initialize;

var index: integer;

begin
for index := 1 to limit do
pool[index] := empty;
top := min − 1
end;

procedure allocate( index, length: integer; var address: integer);

begin

address := pool[index];
if address <> empty then
pool[index] := memory[address]
else
begin
address := top + 1;
top := top + length;
if not (top <= max)
then raise Exception.Create('Stack overflow..')

end
end;

procedure release( index, address: integer);
begin
memory[address] := pool[index];
pool[index] := address
end;

--


More of my philosophy about about the paper and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just forgotten to post about who has written the following
paper about cooperative and preemptive tasking:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

Here is the Professo