The WikiP page you referenced began with the "needs more citations" (i.e. more work) admonishment, and presents so much diverse crap as to be functionally meaningless, except as a gaggle of talking-points.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:53 pmYou said you have programming background, yes? You understand what concurrency/parallelism is, yes?
A "join" is a point in future where multiple concurrent time-lines (threads) collapse back into one. It's a synchronization technique.
And the relevant quote from the wikipedia page on synchronization
So you can think about it as two observers taking different paths through spacetime, who rendevouz at some other point in spacetime and compare notes on "how much time has passed since we parted ways?"Process synchronization refers to the idea that multiple processes are to join up or handshake at a certain point, in order to reach an agreement.
The thread that did more work "experienced more time".
I'm realizing that instead of being a competent interloquitor, you are merely another "be-right" machine, so I'll discontinue conversations with you until your replies become constructive. With adverse ideas like mine, it is easy to find conventional views. I don't need more of them, and I'm looking for simplifications rather than more complex ideas that one can argue about forever.
Anyone who's perused Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book," (excellent philosophers both) will have a sense of where I'm coming from-- which is problem solving.
Nonetheless, I appreciate your contributions.