Yet logic is used to define what the programmer is/is not/maybe
Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
We are the judgements we make. To live without judgement is to live in a boundless state.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Why the **** not!?? Never heard of Ruby - done some C many moons ago.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:34 amFirst question: Why are you prescribing a compiled language (C) why can't I use an interpreted language (Ruby)?attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:28 am So let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
Glanced at it, looked like bollocks.
srand is a function!! - you keep diverting from my point!!Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:34 am The result of Time.now is not pre-determined. It's determined EXACTLY at the time when the operator is called.
Finally, what is the pre-determined result of rand() ?
Code: Select all
➜ ~ cat rand.c #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> int main () { srand(time(NULL)); printf("%d\n", rand() % 1000000); return(0); } ➜ ~ gcc rand.c -o rand ➜ ~ ./rand 988055 ➜ ~ ./rand 21669
Please, again, ...let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
All the boolean operators are functions!attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:56 am srand is a function!! - you keep diverting from my point!!
Does it matter if I write A and B, A && B, A ∧ B, (and A B), or and(A, B)? That's just syntax/notation! It expresses the same thing.
The C compiler will turn it into x86 assembly anyway!
What's wrong with rand() ?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:56 am Please, again, ...let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Ok, call them a function at the 2nd level that C sits upon (assembly - then machine), fine.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:01 amAll the boolean operators are functions!attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:56 am srand is a function!! - you keep diverting from my point!!
Does it matter if I write it as A ∧ B, (and A B), or and(A, B)? That's just syntax/notation!
The C compiler will turn it into a x86 assembly anyway!
You understand what I mean as far as an actual logical operator in C results in a pre-determined outcome - BINARILY - the condition will be met as TRUE or FALSE.
What's wrong with rand() ?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:56 am Please, again, ...let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
[/quote]
rand() would require many steps logical operators contained within - and is not an example of something where the result can be predetermined. This is a sidetrack. (unless of course you make ask for some random integer between 5 and 5 for example!
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Obviously. Because the DESIGNERS of the C programming language made it work that way.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am You understand what I mean as far as an actual logical operator in C results in a pre-determined outcome - BINARILY - the condition will be met as TRUE or FALSE.
That's why they are called Boolean operators. And it's because they have a pre-determined outcome is why we call them deterministic.
At the assembly level. Not at the symbolic level. Then again - the same is true with any Boolean operator.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am rand() would require many steps logical operators contained within
There are many steps inside the CPU to perform an AND on multi-byte input.
Then I have no idea what you are asking. You want non-determinism from a deterministic function?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am - and is not an example of something where the result can be predetermined. This is a sidetrack. (unless of course you make ask for some random integer between 5 and 5 for example!
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Should atto bugger off, cook dinner, and attempt to make his life worthwhile = TRUE;Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:26 amObviously. Because the DESIGNERS of the C programming language made it work that way.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am You understand what I mean as far as an actual logical operator in C results in a pre-determined outcome - BINARILY - the condition will be met as TRUE or FALSE.
That's why they are called Boolean operators. And it's because they have a pre-determined outcome is why we call them deterministic.
At the assembly level. Not at the symbolic level. Then again - the same is true with any Boolean operator.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am rand() would require many steps logical operators contained within
There are many steps inside the CPU to perform an AND on multi-byte input.
Then I have no idea what you are asking. You want non-determinism from a deterministic function?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:18 am - and is not an example of something where the result can be predetermined. This is a sidetrack. (unless of course you make ask for some random integer between 5 and 5 for example!
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Why did you choose that conclusion?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:31 am Should atto bugger off, cook dinner, and attempt to make his life worthwhile = TRUE;
- attofishpi
- Posts: 9956
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:33 amWhy did you choose that conclusion?attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:31 am Should atto bugger off, cook dinner, and attempt to make his life worthwhile = TRUE;
..the more I read just this page that resulted in your statement with an appropriate wink, the more I find it funnier. (there is much to con cider, my final one is rather apple_in)
Since you ask, the final conclusion is:-
function hasattobinbuggered() {
if(attobutthole != anentry)
.........return FALSE;
else
.........return TRUE;
}
(so conclusion perhaps - is, is there time to lose my mangina virginity before I have dinner and make my life worthwhile)
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Yet the creator is defined by a source of logic as to what it is/is not/maybe.
Logic and creation coexist side by side.
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Doesn't have to be. Logic is just one of the many things the creator created.
That wasn't always true.
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?
The individuation of one assertion to another with the cycling of said assertions into newer forms which are empty in themselves given they are dependent upon another form from which to progress.
The individuation of assertions, the cycling of assertions and the emptiness of assertions is the root of logic.
A machine is dependent upon the process of individuation which exists before it as the machine itself is an act of individuation from its source (the creator). The same occurs with cycling, the machine is a replication of the cycles found in nature. Thus for both the machine is dependent upon phenomenon which exist before it therefore the totality of these phenomenon, individuation and cycling, cannot be programmed.
However emptiness cannot be programmed at all.