My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years figuring out how to make the body of
general knowledge fully computable from first principles.
I can now explain my work in terms of adaptations and
improvements to the ideas of five foundational proof
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
On 09/08/2026 5:13 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. >>> -a>
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/, >>> and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years figuring out how to make the body of
general knowledge fully computable from first principles.
And which principles are those exactly?
I admit I'm not a theoretical
creature, and prefer to implement the theory in either C or Common Lisp, though sometimes I dabble in comp.lang.ml.
I can now explain my work in terms of adaptations and
improvements to the ideas of five foundational proof
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
I've heard of none of these guys.-a Have you read /Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning/ by John Harrison?-a I admit I'm still
reading the Introduction, so don't expect me to comment much on the book
just yet.
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
five foundational proofmy work in terms of adaptations and> improvements to the ideas of
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. >>> -a>
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/, >>> and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
five foundational proofmy work in terms of adaptations and> improvements to the ideas of
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. >>>> >
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically >>>> > entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997? Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/, >>>> and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making! I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
five foundational proofmy work in terms of adaptations and> improvements to the ideas of
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
On 08/10/2026 06:26 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to maketrue.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically >>>>> -a> entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta
language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
five foundational proofmy work in terms of adaptations and> improvements to the ideas of
theoretic papers by Dag Prawitz, Thomas Piecha and
Peter Schroeder-Heister.
Here it's sort of understood what Prawitz' "inversion principle" is,
and "adaptations and improvements" don't include "maladaptations
and disfigurements".
Also "Aristotle won't be made a fool, given Chrysippus not Philo".
Prawitz actually technically defines the word "recovery",
and it's resolving references, not balking at circularity.
So, "happy recovery" here is for Prawitz and others who make
for a wider, fuller dialectic and won't get fooled by pathological
reasoning: lack thereof.
Not sock-puppet-bots the logical/mathematical howler trolls.
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:Not sure.
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. >>> -a>
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/, >>> and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true. >>>> -a>
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically >>>> -a> entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta language/, >>>> and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
On 10/08/2026 16:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to maketrue.
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically >>>>> -a> entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta
language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I
believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
We all understand how his words are wrong: he used your words as if
they were not wrong.
On 8/11/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/08/2026 16:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to makesemantically
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be >>>>>> true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for >>>>>> the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta
language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I >>>>>> believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no
truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
We all understand how his words are wrong: he used your words as if
they were not wrong.
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
On 11/08/2026 15:35, polcott wrote:
On 8/11/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/08/2026 16:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to makesemantically
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. >>>>>>> -a> The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be >>>>>>> true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for >>>>>>> the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta
language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I >>>>>>> believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
computable from first principles.figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean no >>>>> truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
We all understand how his words are wrong: he used your words as if
they were not wrong.
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
So you plan still is to deceive with irrelevancies in order to divert
readers attention from inconvenient questions?
On 8/12/2026 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 11/08/2026 15:35, polcott wrote:
On 8/11/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/08/2026 16:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to makesemantically
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. >>>>>>>> -a> The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: >>>>>>>> -a> (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to >>>>>>>> be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal >>>>>>>> -a> language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler for >>>>>>>> the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta >>>>>>>> language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I >>>>>>>> believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a
pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully >>>>>> computable from first principles.
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean
no truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
We all understand how his words are wrong: he used your words as if
they were not wrong.
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
So you plan still is to deceive with irrelevancies in order to divert
readers attention from inconvenient questions?
That is a stupid thing to say. It merely proves your
fundamental ignorance. If you understood proof theoretic
semantics well enough you would see exactly how relevant
it is. Instead of actual knowledge you only have bluster.
On 12/08/2026 16:36, olcott wrote:
On 8/12/2026 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 11/08/2026 15:35, polcott wrote:
On 8/11/2026 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 10/08/2026 16:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/10/2026 1:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.aug.2026 om 23:13 schreef polcott:
On 8/8/2026 1:20 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 08/08/2026 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
My 28 year goal has been to makesemantically
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of general knowledge. >>>>>>>>> -a> The complete structure of this system is now defined.
The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings: >>>>>>>>> -a> (a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to >>>>>>>>> be true.
My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal >>>>>>>>> -a> language such as CycL of the Cyc project.
(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).
Do I understand you correctly, that you plan to make a compiler >>>>>>>>> for
the ML language from 1997?-a Which stands for M.L., the /meta >>>>>>>>> language/,
and never /machine learning/.
Happy compiler making!-a I can point you in some directions, but I >>>>>>>>> believe you have the basics covered!
I spent 28 years
You told us that this sentence has no truth value, because of a >>>>>>> pathological self-reference with the word 'I'.
figuring out how to make the body of> general knowledge fully >>>>>>> computable from first principles.
I can now explain
Again a pathological self-reference. Can we assume that you mean >>>>>>> no truth value? Is it not true?
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
We all understand how his words are wrong: he used your words as if
they were not wrong.
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
So you plan still is to deceive with irrelevancies in order to divert
readers attention from inconvenient questions?
That is a stupid thing to say. It merely proves your
fundamental ignorance. If you understood proof theoretic
semantics well enough you would see exactly how relevant
it is. Instead of actual knowledge you only have bluster.
If you had any actual relevant knowledge you wouldn't say stupid things.
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when coding graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
On 11/08/2026 8:35 PM, polcott wrote:
Directed acyclic graphs cannot possibly have
pathological self-reference that loops.
I believe this is exactly where you are wrong.-a And probably shows
how inexperienced you are in the matters of practical magick with C.
You just take one of your /links/ in the directed acyclic graph, rewrite
the /next/ pointer to point to the head of itself,
then it repeats
itself forever.-a Wouldn't that still be a directed acyclic graph?-a It's still pointing in the same direction, it doesn't have cycles in the
graph theoretic sense, because it loops forever trying to point to
itself?
How's that for a logical conundrum!-a How would you code that in C?-a Can
you prove that it's impossible to code in C?-a Or should I attempt to
create a demonstrational code, based on my favorite graph theoretic
library in C, that is currently sitting on my bookshelf.
You like to refer to papers, I like to refer to books with tangible
code!
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On 15/08/2026 00:22, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when coding >>> graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
On 15/08/2026 5:22 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when coding >>> graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
In that case, I upstage you, you asshole, and create a circular list of
you in Common Lisp.
-a (nconc polcott polcott)
Because Common Lisp in infinitely superiour to C++, you fucking asshole.
See, I didn't even need any /library function/, it's right there in the fucking programming language!-a What do you think of that, you theoretic-
al asshole?
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On the other hand, Common Lisp can have side effects everywhere, unlike
you, you Haskell licking slut!-a Do you think monads are something you
put on your food?-a Or do you suck monads all day long for your own plea- sure?
On 8/15/2026 12:31 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 5:22 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when
coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
In that case, I upstage you, you asshole, and create a circular list of
you in Common Lisp.
Disrespecting me gets you *plonked* or ignored.
-a-a (nconc polcott polcott)
Because Common Lisp in infinitely superiour to C++, you fucking asshole.
Lisp is generally too slow compared to C++.
The system that I propose is a production system
requirng maximum performance to minimize hardware
costs.
See, I didn't even need any /library function/, it's right there in the
fucking programming language!-a What do you think of that, you theoretic-
al asshole?
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On the other hand, Common Lisp can have side effects everywhere, unlike
you, you Haskell licking slut!-a Do you think monads are something you
put on your food?-a Or do you suck monads all day long for your own plea-
sure?
Side effects are bugs.
On 15/08/2026 6:33 PM, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 12:31 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 5:22 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered, >>>>> so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when
coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
In that case, I upstage you, you asshole, and create a circular list of
you in Common Lisp.
Disrespecting me gets you *plonked* or ignored.
-a-a (nconc polcott polcott)
Because Common Lisp in infinitely superiour to C++, you fucking asshole. >>>
Lisp is generally too slow compared to C++.
The system that I propose is a production system
requirng maximum performance to minimize hardware
costs.
See, I didn't even need any /library function/, it's right there in the
fucking programming language!-a What do you think of that, you theoretic- >>> al asshole?
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On the other hand, Common Lisp can have side effects everywhere, unlike
you, you Haskell licking slut!-a Do you think monads are something you
put on your food?-a Or do you suck monads all day long for your own plea- >>> sure?
Side effects are bugs.
I see.-a Please unplug you monitor.-a It has side effects, and is there-
fore buggy.-a You're unfit to post on Usenet, because you don't under-
stand that the machine has side effects.
And never, ever re-plug your monitor.-a You're unfit to see what I post
on Usenet!
On 8/15/2026 6:26 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 6:33 PM, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 12:31 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 5:22 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered, >>>>>> so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when >>>>>> coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
In that case, I upstage you, you asshole, and create a circular list of >>>> you in Common Lisp.
Disrespecting me gets you *plonked* or ignored.
-a-a (nconc polcott polcott)
Because Common Lisp in infinitely superiour to C++, you fucking
asshole.
Lisp is generally too slow compared to C++.
The system that I propose is a production system
requirng maximum performance to minimize hardware
costs.
See, I didn't even need any /library function/, it's right there in the >>>> fucking programming language!-a What do you think of that, you
theoretic-
al asshole?
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On the other hand, Common Lisp can have side effects everywhere, unlike >>>> you, you Haskell licking slut!-a Do you think monads are something you >>>> put on your food?-a Or do you suck monads all day long for your own
plea-
sure?
Side effects are bugs.
I see.-a Please unplug you monitor.-a It has side effects, and is there-
fore buggy.-a You're unfit to post on Usenet, because you don't under-
stand that the machine has side effects.
And never, ever re-plug your monitor.-a You're unfit to see what I post
on Usenet!
Containment (encapsulation) in C++ means that a
unit of code (a class) holds its data and the
operations that manipulate that data inside one
protected structure. Its benefit is that it keeps
the data safe from accidental misuse by forcing
all access to go through the classrCOs own functions.
In C, a struct holds only the data, and any part
of the program can read or modify that data directly.
All the rules for using the data are scattered across
the codebase, so nothing prevents incorrect access,
missed initialization, or broken usage patterns.
This is the only aspect of the complex details
of C++ that I have ever used.
On 15/08/2026 9:32 PM, polcott wrote:[...]
On 8/15/2026 6:26 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 6:33 PM, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 12:31 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 15/08/2026 5:22 AM, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you >>>>>>> code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not >>>>>>> just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered, >>>>>>> so this must be a simple task.
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when >>>>>>> coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
In that case, I upstage you, you asshole, and create a circular
list of
you in Common Lisp.
Disrespecting me gets you *plonked* or ignored.
-a-a (nconc polcott polcott)
Because Common Lisp in infinitely superiour to C++, you fucking
asshole.
Lisp is generally too slow compared to C++.
The system that I propose is a production system
requirng maximum performance to minimize hardware
costs.
See, I didn't even need any /library function/, it's right there in >>>>> the
fucking programming language!-a What do you think of that, you
theoretic-
al asshole?
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
On the other hand, Common Lisp can have side effects everywhere,
unlike
you, you Haskell licking slut!-a Do you think monads are something you >>>>> put on your food?-a Or do you suck monads all day long for your own >>>>> plea-
sure?
Side effects are bugs.
I see.-a Please unplug you monitor.-a It has side effects, and is there- >>> fore buggy.-a You're unfit to post on Usenet, because you don't under-
stand that the machine has side effects.
And never, ever re-plug your monitor.-a You're unfit to see what I post
on Usenet!
Containment (encapsulation) in C++ means that a
unit of code (a class) holds its data and the
operations that manipulate that data inside one
protected structure. Its benefit is that it keeps
the data safe from accidental misuse by forcing
all access to go through the classrCOs own functions.
You really need to get out of your bed, and read /The Shellcoder's
Handbook/, by Anley, Heasman, Lindner, and Richarte.-a I hope I got
all the names right, as I typed this in myself, from my shelf.
On 8/15/2026 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/08/2026 00:22, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when
coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
It is inherently a tree like structure that only
adds leaves.
On 8/15/2026 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/08/2026 00:22, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered,
so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when
coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
It is inherently a tree like structure that only
adds leaves.
On 15/08/2026 13:26, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 15/08/2026 00:22, polcott wrote:
On 8/14/2026 12:49 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/08/2026 9:26 PM, polcott wrote:
Since you have all the knowledge, why don't you teach us how you
If you understand what a directed acyclic graph
is then you will understand how you are wrong.
code directed acyclic graphs, in C?-a I mean, show code, and not
just spout theoretical nonsense.-a You say you're already recovered, >>>>> so this must be a simple task.
Or at minimum, tell us exactly which graph library you'd use when
coding
graphs in C.
Best wishes, and happy coding in C!
I would make a rooted directed acyclic graph using
C++ std:vector with integer indices as the links
between the nodes.
A small subset of C++ is enormously better than C.
I only use 2 or 3 std library functions and C++
classes/objects.
This last difference lets you divide up a a system
into totally independent modules such that changes
to one cannot possibly have any side-effects on and
of the others. It makes system development much easier
and much more reliable and has very little learning
curve. I make sure to totally ignore all of the rest
of C++.
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
It is inherently a tree like structure that only
adds leaves.
You just need be careful that the restrictions are fully implemented.
On 15/08/2026 6:26 PM, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
It is inherently a tree like structure that only
adds leaves.
What the fucking stupidity are you talking about? How the fuck
can you not connect two /acyclic directed graphs/ together and
still get a /directed acyclic graph/ out of it?
Are you fucking stupid? Do you belong in elementary school? Have
you never, ever, worked with a forest of /directed acyclic graph/
trees?
Now and immediately, go to your fucking nearest bookstore, and buy a
hardcopy of Loudon's /Mastering Algorithms in C/, and type in the code,
then, and only then, will I start to respect you, you fucking stupid
piece of shit!
----
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:
On 15/08/2026 6:26 PM, polcott wrote:
On 8/15/2026 2:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
[ .... ]
If you want a directed acyclic graphs as a datatype you must check
every time the structure is updated that no cycle is produced.
It is inherently a tree like structure that only
adds leaves.
What the fucking stupidity are you talking about? How the fuck
can you not connect two /acyclic directed graphs/ together and
still get a /directed acyclic graph/ out of it?
Are you fucking stupid? Do you belong in elementary school? Have
you never, ever, worked with a forest of /directed acyclic graph/
trees?
Now and immediately, go to your fucking nearest bookstore, and buy a
hardcopy of Loudon's /Mastering Algorithms in C/, and type in the code,
then, and only then, will I start to respect you, you fucking stupid
piece of shit!
Can we please manage without all this profanity. In this instance, there wasn't even any provocation for it. comp.theory is not a group where
foul language acts to eliminate sensible discussion. Let's keep it that
way. Thanks!
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
I am doing much better now.
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout
nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need
a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization,
and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout
nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need
a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization,
and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout
nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need
a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization,
and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why don't
you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently practical
in a programming language of your choice?-a I am currently writing a C compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C.-a These are two books you
have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again.
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt. lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler Implementation
in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/.
I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so please
use your newfound health and take a walk.
On the subject of health, I also took plenty of walks in London, earlier
this year.-a It's absolutely lovely in and around Hyde Park.-a And un- related to /The strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde/ by Robert Luis Stevenson, available for checkout at
-a https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/43
so you can just read it.
So, next time you're on a walk, please let us know here in comp.theory
if you encounter any gothic horrors.-a I'd be delighted to read them
stories.
Happy gothic horror stories in comp.theory!
[1] That's his name; it's not a typo.--
On 8/21/2026 6:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout
nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need
a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization,
and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why don't
you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently practical
in a programming language of your choice?-a I am currently writing a C
compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C.-a These are two books you
have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again.
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt.
lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler Implementation
in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/.
I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so please
use your newfound health and take a walk.
I did write a C compiler in C using YACC and LEX.
I only did the hard part of control flow. My purpose
was to create my hybrid language named 2.5GL. It
added C control flow on top of assembly language.
On 22/08/2026 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 6:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout
nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need
a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization, >>>>> and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why don't
you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently practical
in a programming language of your choice?-a I am currently writing a C
compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C.-a These are two books you
have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again.
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt.
lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler Implementation
in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/.
I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so please >>> use your newfound health and take a walk.
I did write a C compiler in C using YACC and LEX.
I only did the hard part of control flow. My purpose
was to create my hybrid language named 2.5GL. It
added C control flow on top of assembly language.
So, what else of practical importance do you have on your /curriculum vitae/.-a I can admit -- and did admit -- to have had my single S.Q.L. proposal to the I.S.O. standards committee shut down, so I cannot say
I have influenced the S.Q.L. standard at all.
Have you?-a Or rather, which standards group have you ever tried to influence?
Is this 2.5GL in any relation to OpenGL?-a Does it affect the /graphical prognostication unit/?-a And which assembly language did you use?-a 68000?
Happy writing queries in S.Q.L!
On 8/27/2026 2:33 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 6:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear! Have you decided not to be stupid and spout >>>>>> nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for
whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need >>>>>> a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization, >>>>>> and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why don't >>>> you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently practical >>>> in a programming language of your choice? I am currently writing a C
compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C. These are two books you
have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again.
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt.
lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler Implementation >>>> in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/.
I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so
please
use your newfound health and take a walk.
I did write a C compiler in C using YACC and LEX.
I only did the hard part of control flow. My purpose
was to create my hybrid language named 2.5GL. It
added C control flow on top of assembly language.
So, what else of practical importance do you have on your /curriculum
vitae/. I can admit -- and did admit -- to have had my single S.Q.L.
proposal to the I.S.O. standards committee shut down, so I cannot say
I have influenced the S.Q.L. standard at all.
Have you? Or rather, which standards group have you ever tried to
influence?
Is this 2.5GL in any relation to OpenGL? Does it affect the /graphical
prognostication unit/? And which assembly language did you use? 68000?
Happy writing queries in S.Q.L!
I have two patents on OCR technology
On 08/27/2026 04:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/27/2026 2:33 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 6:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear!-a Have you decided not to be stupid and spout >>>>>>> nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for >>>>>>> whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need >>>>>>> a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph visualization, >>>>>>> and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why don't >>>>> you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently practical >>>>> in a programming language of your choice?-a I am currently writing a C >>>>> compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C.-a These are two books you >>>>> have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again.
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt. >>>>> lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler
Implementation
in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/. >>>>> I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so
please
use your newfound health and take a walk.
I did write a C compiler in C using YACC and LEX.
I only did the hard part of control flow. My purpose
was to create my hybrid language named 2.5GL. It
added C control flow on top of assembly language.
So, what else of practical importance do you have on your /curriculum
vitae/.-a I can admit -- and did admit -- to have had my single S.Q.L.
proposal to the I.S.O. standards committee shut down, so I cannot say
I have influenced the S.Q.L. standard at all.
Have you?-a Or rather, which standards group have you ever tried to
influence?
Is this 2.5GL in any relation to OpenGL?-a Does it affect the /graphical >>> prognostication unit/?-a And which assembly language did you use?-a 68000? >>>
Happy writing queries in S.Q.L!
I have two patents on OCR technology
So should Elisha Gray.
At some point pretty much everything is obvious
to somebody "knowledgeable in the art".
Donate to Wikipedia today,--
bots' been leeching them profitably for decades.
On 8/27/2026 10:22 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/27/2026 04:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/27/2026 2:33 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 6:35 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 4:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/21/2026 1:17 PM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 22/08/2026 1:36 AM, polcott wrote:
I am doing much better now.
That's great to hear! Have you decided not to be stupid and spout >>>>>>>> nonsense, and start to work on your own non-trivial project, for >>>>>>>> whatever passes for non-trivial for you?
You can always make your own /computer algebra system/ if you need >>>>>>>> a mathematically inclined challenge, or pick up graph
visualization,
and compete with Graphviz!
Happy coding something, anything, practical!
I did successfully complete my 28 years of research
as outlined below. No one here has even a slight
basis for understanding how this work is anchored.
Even the smartest guy here: Ross Finlayson is stuck
on baseless denigration utterly refusing to obtain
the required basis.
That's good to know, and now that your research is finished, why
don't
you top it off, so to speak, by writing something inherently
practical
in a programming language of your choice? I am currently writing a C >>>>>> compiler in Rust, and a Tiger compiler in C. These are two books you >>>>>> have probably never heard of, so I'll mention them by name, again. >>>>>>
See comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.misc, comp.lang.asm, alt. >>>>>> lang.asm, and comp.os.msdos.programmer for the relevant context.
The first book is Andrew W. Appel's [1] /Modern Compiler
Implementation
in C/, and the second book is Nora Sandler's /Writing a C compiler/. >>>>>> I'm sure you can find both in your nearest physical bookstore, so
please
use your newfound health and take a walk.
I did write a C compiler in C using YACC and LEX.
I only did the hard part of control flow. My purpose
was to create my hybrid language named 2.5GL. It
added C control flow on top of assembly language.
So, what else of practical importance do you have on your /curriculum
vitae/. I can admit -- and did admit -- to have had my single S.Q.L.
proposal to the I.S.O. standards committee shut down, so I cannot say
I have influenced the S.Q.L. standard at all.
Have you? Or rather, which standards group have you ever tried to
influence?
Is this 2.5GL in any relation to OpenGL? Does it affect the /graphical >>>> prognostication unit/? And which assembly language did you use?
68000?
Happy writing queries in S.Q.L!
I have two patents on OCR technology
So should Elisha Gray.
At some point pretty much everything is obvious
to somebody "knowledgeable in the art".
Bullshit!
Donate to Wikipedia today,
bots' been leeching them profitably for decades.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 30:01:25 |
| Calls: | 1,195 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
16 files (19,622K bytes) |
| Messages: | 294,274 |