Numerics in JavaScript. Messed-up. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 8:43 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] naive question
Just for example. I run my fib.js twice wrapped by time and get: gepr@elric:~/lang/js$ time ./fib.js 100 354224848179262000000 real 0m0.148s user 0m0.137s sys 0m0.013s gepr@elric:~/lang/js$ time ./fib.js 100 354224848179262000000 real 0m0.134s user 0m0.116s sys 0m0.020s strace also shows quite a bit of difference: gepr@elric:~/lang/js$ strace ./fib.js 100 2> fibout1 354224848179262000000 gepr@elric:~/lang/js$ strace ./fib.js 100 2> fibout2 354224848179262000000 gepr@elric:~/lang/js$ diff -C0 fibout?|wc -l 1331 On 10/21/22 08:16, glen wrote: > No, not even from the user's perspective. The time program helps show how > much system, process, and user time is executed by the same script on > different systems. This is especially important on multi-user systems, but > any system that allows multiple processes will show differences. I suggest > you run your script, wrapped by time or strace on the different systems and > examine the output. > > Now, *you* as the user, may not have noticed the differences in execution > time or resource use. But *you* would not be the canonical Unix user, if > that's the case. >8^D Hell, even on VMS, we were plagued with differences > between successive executions of various scripts. That you didn't notice such > is interesting. > > On 10/21/22 08:08, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Yes. From the user's perspective they ran identically. Those workstations >> didn't even have the same instruction sets. >> >> --- >> Frank C. Wimberly >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> 505 670-9918 >> Santa Fe, NM >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022, 8:24 AM glen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> By "ran identically", you actually mean "produced identical outputs". >> They didn't run identically. Simple ways to see this are system and process >> monitors, top, strace, etc. >> >> On 10/20/22 17:19, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> > Back in the 80s I wrote many Unix shell scripts. For my purposes >> they ran identically on various workstations whether Sun, SG, or, >> eventually, Vax (running Unix). The software existed in my mind/brain, in >> files in the various filesystems, or on paper listings. What's wrong with >> my thinking? >> > >> > Frank >> > >> > --- >> > Frank C. Wimberly >> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, >> > Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> > >> > 505 670-9918 >> > Santa Fe, NM >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 3:52 PM glen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> > >> > I can't speak for anyone else. I'm a simulationist. Everything I >> do is in terms of analogy [⛧]. But there is no such thing as a fully >> transparent or opaque box. And there is no such thing as "software". All >> processes are executed by some material mechanism. So if by "computational >> metaphor", you mean the tossing out of the differences between any 2 >> machines executing the same code, then I'm right there with you in rejecting >> it. No 2 machines can execute the same (identical) code. But if you define >> an analogy well, then you can replace one machine with another machine, up >> to some similarity criterion. Equivalence is defined by that similarity >> criterion. By your use of the qualifier "merely" in "merely the equivalent", >> I infer you think there's something *other* than equivalence, something >> other than simulation. I reject that. It's all equivalence, just some >> tighter and some looser. >> > >> > [⛧] Everyone's welcome to replace "analogy" with "metaphor" if >> they so choose. But, to me, "metaphor" tends to wipe away or purposefully >> ignore the pragmatics involved in distinguishing any 2 members of an >> equivalence class. The literary concept of "metaphor" has it right. It's a >> rhetorical, manipulative trick to help us ignore actual difference, whereas >> "analogy" helps us remember and account for differences and similarities. >> "Metaphor" is an evil word, a crucial tool in the toolkit for manipulators >> and gaslighters. >> > >> > >> > On 10/20/22 13:27, Prof David West wrote: >> > > >> > > Marcus and glen (and others on occasion) have posted >> frequently on the "algorithmic "equivalent" of [some feature] of >> consciousness, human emotion, etc. >> > > >> > > I am always confronted with the question of of "how >> equivalent?" I am almost certain that they are not saying anything close to >> absolute equivalence - i.e., that the brain/mind is executing the same >> algorithm albeit in, perhaps, a different programming language. But, are >> their assertions meant to be "analogous to," "a metaphor for," or some other >> semi/pseudo equivalence? >> > > >> > > Perhaps all that is being said is we have two black boxes into >> which we put the same inputs and arrive at the same outputs. Voila! We >> expose the contents of one black box, an algorithm executing on silicon. >> From that we conclude it does not matter what is happening inside the other >> black box—whatever it is, our, now, white box is an 'equivalent'. >> > > >> > > Put another way: If I have two objects, A and B, each with an >> (ir)regular edge. in this case the irregular edge of A is an inverse match >> to that of B—when put together there are no gaps between the two edges. They >> "fit." >> > > >> > > Assume that A and B have some means to detect if they "fit" >> together. I can think of algorithms that could determine fit, a simplistic >> iteration across all points to see if there was a gap between it and its >> neighbor, to some kind of collision detection. >> > > >> > > Is it the case that whatever means used by A and B to detect >> fit, it is _*/merely/*_ the equivalent of such an algorithm? >> > > >> > > The roots of this question go back to my first two published >> papers, in _AI Magazine_ (then the 'journal of record' for AI research); one >> critical of the computational metaphor, the second a set of alternative >> metaphors of mind. An excerpt relevant to the above example of fit. >> > > >> > > /Tactilizing Processor >> > > / >> > > /Conrad draws his inspiration from the ability of an enzyme to >> combine with a substrate on the basis of the physical congruency of >> their respective shapes (topography). This is a generalized version of >> the lock-and-key mechanism as the hormone-receptor matching discussed >> by Bergland. When the topographic shape of an enzyme (hormone) matches >> that of a substrate (receptor), a simple recognize- by-touch >> mechanism (like two pieces of a puzzle fitting together) allows a >> simple decision, binary state change, or process to take place, >> hence the label “tactilizing processor.”/ >> > > >> > > Hormones and enzymes, probably/possibly, lack the ability to >> compute (execute algorithms), so, at most, the black box equivalence might >> be used here. >> > > >> > > [BTW, tactilizing processors were built, but were extremely >> slow (speed of chemical reactions) but had some advantages derived from >> parallelism. Similar 'shape matching' computation was explored in DNA >> computing as well.] >> > > >> > > My interest in the issue is the (naive) question about how our >> understanding of mind/consciousness is fatally impeded by putting all our >> research eggs into the simplistic 'algorithm box'? >> > > >> > > It seems to me that we have the CS/AI/ML equivalent of the >> quantum physics world where everyone is told to "shut up and compute" >> instead of actually trying to understand the domain and the theory. >> > > >> > > davew > > -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
