khaled

I just want to point out that it was in fact not me that gave khaled the -1 point, just to be clear!

GPUs are not tailored for some software, they are enhanced by optimizing some issues that occur on some well-known software .. but they're not tailored for any of them

I've seen absurdity from semantic ambiguity to use specific jargon for everything .. I no longer care if they -1 me, it won't break symmetry or make the wrong come true

Xitenn, Graphical processors are not tailored for any software .. I think you should pay more focus on the design of your graphics processing model,

Linerize your algorithms and optimize your methods .. that's how these software work like if they have no load on the GPU

One more thing, you don't have to use wires to build a computer .. meaning, make use of the updates on tech and libraries

This sounds silly, but I've written an informal algorithm on the Envelope Problem (that make use of luck and luckiness):

1. Alpha = how lucky are you in general %

2. Beta = how lucky do you feel at the moment %

2. make an initial decision (set a bet on one of the envelops)

3. IF Alpha > 50% AND Beta > Alpha THEN Finalize your bet

-- ELSE IF Alpha > 50% AND Beta < Alpha THEN Swap & Finalize

-- ELSE (as preconfigured) Someone else (whose Beta > Alpha > 50%) will make the Swap for you

Here is a compiled code that works fine: C++, C

.. I think this is the problem:

scanf("%lf", s.latitude);

a. if s.latitude is a pointer, it must be allocated before used

b. if s.latitude is a variable, it must be preceded by &

.. if your code still doesn't work then check these:

1. within the file: main.h

2. why name it main.h (which is assumed to be accompanied with main.c\main.cpp as its definition), change that file name

3. The compiler you're using, try another

Take a look at the documentation: http://eclipseclp.org/wiki/

Euclid probably wasn't aware of the curvature of spacetime.

Imagine we are at the time, when Euclid or Archimedes was living .. We wouldn't be aware of much

There are two approaches, One is that you want to prove that something is valid .. so you start from mathematics axioms (things we

know are certain true) and try to derive logically that something.

Just like what Bignose said "Axioms, by definition, are not meant to be provable. They are taken to be true.",

axioms of mathematics were considered as a unified system, such that there wouldn't exist P and not P at the same time,

that's part of history, mathematicians who worked for unifying all mathematics like David Hilbert and others.

The other one is that you want to prove that two things can form a valid model, in which one can be derived from the other,

and they don't contradict, in other words, it has to be valid and consistent.

And to make sure that it's valid, you try logical derivation in both directions ...

Logic is simple to understand .. Logic is concerned with truthness of statement

The propositional Logic, We have statements that use propositions only, every statement is either TRUE or FALSE

First-Order Logic, We have statements that use propositions & variables, statements are either TRUE or FALSE

Fuzzy Logic, We have statements that use propositions, variables, & other things, a statement has a Probability of Truthness [0, 1]

propositions: is something constant, example 'the moon' in "the moon is red"

variables: is something variant, example X (which can be anything) in "X is red"

Probability: is a value between 0.0 and 1.0, that represent how likely it'd be true

Propositional Example: "Bob drink tea or coffee"

First-Order Example: "IF X > Y THEN Y^X > X^Y", where X, Y are variables with domain of Integer Numbers and axioms of Algebra

Fuzzy Logic Example: "Hotel H has 70 occupied rooms of total 100 rooms", give us "Hotel H is 70% occupied" and "Hotel H is 30% available"

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

I understand that understanding the concepts is important in order to build the design, you mentioned that you want to build

fuzzy systems (fuzzy logic based models), which are complex and need alot of work in different areas from Logic & AI to Statistical Models,

I once worked on statistical models such as Bayesian Networks, Markov Chains, and Markov Hidden Models, different applications

vary from CSP, SAT, Weather Forensics, .. to Natural Language Processing, Part-of-Speech Tagging, ..etc

.. good luck

i went to www.ideone.com and ran the following in both c and c++

#include <stdio.h>
int main(){
  int x = 7;
  int y = 3;
  int z = x^y;
  printf("%d \n",z);
  z = y^x;
  printf("%d \n",z);
  return 0;
}

and got

4

4

here's my coding challenge to you. xor 5 variables together on the same line with the ^ symbol, no side function.

Your code is current, that's +1 for you .. I think I was mis-confused by old compilers, but it's good that they modified it

but your code is doing exactly the same thing mine is, only more abstractly!

i was well aware in c that a^b = xor(a, b)

any way....

interesting solution for problem #1.

here's the way i was thinking of solving it.

#include <stdio.h>
int increment(int val){
  static int x = 0;
  x += 1;
  return x;
}
int main ( )
{
     int X = 0;

     if ( increment(X) != increment(X))
     {
           printf ( "impossible can happen" );
     }

     return 0;
}

which should in theory print the statement.

Two things,

1. [edited] your solution is correct

2. The second puzzle stated that the condition should not be changed, the condition is: X != X

which seem impossible algebraically, but not according to undefined numbers in IEEE standard

.. good luck, try the question I posted

"We know that higher gravity fields make clocks oscillate ("tick") more slowly."

1. What if we can make the clock, calculate the gravitational force, to normalize its timing ?

2. Can't we create a clock that has an oscillator that is, by some mechanism, not affected by gravity fields ?

3. There are variants, you know things that change with time and things that remain constant

4. "An object can have two positions in space, at the same moment" this is wrong,

but is "An object is observed in two positions at the same moment" wrong ?

Well you got me khaled . . . next time I'll try thinking 'inside' the box! ;-)

you mean "outside" the box, although I still wonder since when the box exist

I love philosophical challenges, since I'm a philosopher .. I'm not good with mathematics and equations,

but I'm good with logic .. and so, I will give you a hard one

Question: Can unsolvable problems be solved ?

Hints:

"If a bicycle wheel is radially symmetric, if you can spin it on its axis and it still looks the same in all directions, well, then, that symmetric

translation must yield a corresponding conservation. By applying the principles and calculations embodied in Noether’s theorem, you’ll see

it’s angular momentum, the Newtonian impulse that keeps bicyclists upright and on the move." NY Times

Someone who's studying Engineering told me that the moving thin wheels are tangling ground by a continuous line,

unlike not-moving thin wheels that are not moving, they are tangling ground by a point

The last quote I understand well, but don't understand the meaning behind it is "whether you throw a ball in the air tomorrow

or make the same toss next week will have no effect on the ball’s trajectory" NY Times

The article conclusion is that Noether’s theorem shows that a symmetry of time is directly related to the conservation of energy.

I know what is the conservation law of energy, but what is the symmetry of time .. I know super symmetry theory that says

that universe is made of matters and anti-matters that sum up to Zero.

Time is an abstract entity, to study progress & relative progress between physics elements

We fix our clocks from time to time to be sync with an international global clock, but there is no universal clock

Speaking of which, can't constant invariants (over time) be used to create a perfect clock ?

This website is nice, it has animations that illustrate different theories in Relativity: http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/SpecialRelativity.html

"We know that higher gravity fields make clocks oscillate ("tick") more slowly."

1. What if we can make the clock, calculate the gravitational force, to normalize its timing ?

2. Can't we create a clock that has an oscillator that is, by some mechanism, not affected by gravity fields ?

3. There are variants, you know things that change with time and things that remain constant

4. "An object can have two positions in space, at the same moment" this is wrong,

but is "An object is observed in two positions at the same moment" wrong ?

I was reading articles, when I came upon this "riding a bicycle is safe." from an article on Noether's theorem,

What I don't understand, is how was that riding a bicycle is safe concluded, and what is Noether's theorem ?

I don't see how khaled's first challenge is at all feasible without modifying the compiler itself???

It's possible using 1 line of code, here it is in case you're curious

#include <stdio.h>
#include<math.h>

int main ( )
{
     float X = sqrt(-1);

     if ( X != X )
     {
           printf ( "impossible can happen" );
     }

     return 0;
}

the second one was fairly simple; still not sure about the first. i have a couple ideas bouncing around though.

swap( int a, int b){

a = a^b

b = a^b

a = a^b

}

your code doesn't work, because a^b is "a power b" in [math]\mathbb{Z}[/math], here is the solution

int xor (int x, int y)
{
   return (x ^= y);
}

void swap (int a, int b)
{
  a = xor (a, b);
  b = xor (a, b);
  a = xor (a, b);
}

Realizing what software that remove vocals from sounds really does help you know that perfect results are impossible (exception to some cases)

They don't remove vocals magically .. they recognize the vocals (Step 1), and then pad them (Step 2)

I know that sounds that effects the body are related to the brain

"bolshie, bolshy [ˈbɒlʃɪ] (sometimes capital) Brit informaladj1. difficult to manage; rebellious"

That's a slang word, trying to say "Bullshit" in a more civil way

Here is my first programming challenge,

#include <stdio.h>

int main ( )
{
     int X = 0;

     if ( X != X )
     {
           printf ( "impossible can happen" );
     }

     return 0;
}

The challenge is simple, modify the code above, such that the condition ( X != X ) return TRUE, "impossible can happen" will print,

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

Here is my second programming challenge,

#include <stdio.h>

void swap ( int * A, int * B )
{
     // write your code here
}

int main ( )
{
     int A = 1, B = 2;

     printf ( " A = %d, B = %d \n", A, B );

     swap ( &A, &B );

     printf ( " A = %d, B = %d \n", A, B );

     return 0;
}

modify the code above, implement the swap function that swap values of A and B, BUT DO NOT DEFINE A NEW\TEMP VARIABLE !

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

.. good luck

Mr. Krauss is an unreliable theorist and an atheist with an ax to grind.

 

http://www.slate.com...f_anything.html

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case WesternReserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. Heopposed the teaching of intelligentdesign on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essayfor the New York Times that dissedPresident Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in theMirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, theleading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that stringtheory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it.

Zorro, I'm a muslim person by the way, I'm not against anything or against how one beliefs should be like, but in this place we have

respect and science. Those scientists don't come up with speculations, they come with equations, models, systems that built on scientific

roots, saying things such as "unreliable" is meaningless, Because in science we have theory, proof, soundness, rigorousness, and analysis

.. I won't look to your beliefs, your vision for the future, or your speculations .. I will look to theory you can proof

.. so if you don't like his theory, study mathematics and physics well and come up with a better theory

and if you have a difficulty in understanding something, the experts here will help you

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

"Everything from Nothing" means "All matter from No matter", it says that before the big bang there was Zero Matter, and alot of energy

.. and somehow the creation operator was activated, which created all the matter in this universe .. and if you see things from the

universe age, you will see that the universe was born at time Zero

First of all, it's a theory, but it's supported by many theories .. Quantum theory, Singularity, String Theory, and Super Symmetry which tell us that

all matter in the universe sums up to Zero, since every matter has an anti-matter, where I think that the creation operator in quantum theory takes

energy and should create the exact amount of matters opposed by anti-matters, in order to preserve the symmetry, Now you can imagine that if

everything was taken into a single point at the universe, all matters and anti-matters will collide back into energy, and back to the Zero.

I've learned all of that from a talk given by Lawrence Krauss

You are soooo right. The Psudo Sciences will dismiss this and go on to a newer song and dance to keep Creationist back even if there is no basis at all for their proposed way to go to everything from nothing.

 

BTW, there must have been trillions of Universes prior to the Big Bang according to miltiverse theory.

1. do you really know what 'everything' and 'nothing' really means in "everything from nothing", hint: it's related to matter

2. Multiverse theory, String theory, .. they are theories that discuss the probability space of a quantum state (not real state) in the future (not the past)

There is only 1 universe, that was created from a specific amount of energy from the big bang

.. the next moment you think they become more, that even break the principle of Energy Preservation

Let's simplify it to this, implement this algorithm

Source: http://people.math.sfu.ca/~pmenz/thesis.pdf

I've got one . . . . implement the Riemann [math] \zeta [/math] function over GPU .. . . use any method you wish but the result should be a colour animation of some sort!

I think your programming challenge is "implement the Riemann [math] \zeta [/math] function",

Implementing a Riemann Zeta function is not a simple challenge, Analytical models require Combinatorics when it comes to Computability

unless if one would implement an existing computational algorithm from papers .. like this one

There was nothing before the big bang (as far as we know), not even time, and because time did not exist prior to the universe, the universe technically has always existed. There was nothing to count seconds before the universe, so it's technically infinite or at least undefined.

That is a theory known as "A universe from Nothing" about a universe that was created when the big bang occurred, the creation operator

was activated which have created all the matter the universe started with .. Creation operator in Quantum theory