EdEarl

I have started this thread to help cloudzell91 with an idea for a thesis project. He needs more than one to present to his adviser. The original idea came from one of the Knuth "Fundamental Algorithms" volumes, as I recall. I do not have a copy to verify my memory and extract a quote. However, the quote said something to the effect that programming languages cannot modify their own syntax, as spoken languages can. That peaked my curiosity and started me on a lifelong quest to satisfy my curiosity about how it may be done. Several years later, I worked for Datapoint, a minicomputer manufacturer, who had developed a scripting language called CHAINPLUS, which had functions that could get (read) parameters from their call line. Later I worked on Tandem computers and learned a scripting language called TACL, which had functions that got parameters form calls including character-by-character. This process of getting parameters from a call line, instead of functions being passed parameters is essential to making a language that can define functions having any syntax. Although TACL is a scripting language (as BASH) it is also a structured language that with arrays and can be used for rapid prototyping. On the other hand, it is horribly slow when running programs. Ameba is my idea for a language that is both good for rapid prototyping and ultimately capable of being compiled to make fast running programs. Adding the ability for making functions with any syntax gives it the ability be a meta programming language (in other words a language for writing languages), able to make domain specific language extensions, able to do natural language processing, and many other things. To be able to do these things, leads to a requirement for multi-paradigm semantics. And, the requirement for efficient run time leads to the need for partial evaluation of source code, which means functional processing would be a nice addition. Functional processing can lead to a language for proving program correctness. Thus, I think, this thesis can ultimately be developed into a dissertation project. However, a dissertation is too much for a first step. For a thesis project, Ameba does not need all the bells and whistles. ------------------------ I do not know what you need to present to your adviser. Please ask questions and I will provide more detail, for example: * lexical analysis requirements and design. * pseudocode requirements and design * kernel requirements and design I recommend you think about some of the requirements and give me some feedback so that I can better communicate with you. Anyone may ask questions and I will answer. ============= 1) To satisfy requirements as a language for writing languages, Ameba symbols may be any string of characters, including spaces and special characters. 2) To run fast requires some lexical preprocessing, but 1) prevents perfect lexical preprocessing. Lexical preprocessing translates from source into pseudocode. Thus, lexical processing requires more than one strategy, including the following: 2A--preprocessing by default rules, assume ASCII 2A1--strings of digits <number>::=<digit>|<digit><number> 2A2--strings of alphabetics <alpha-string>::=<alpha-char>|<alpha-char><alpha-string> 2A3--strings of special characters 2A4--<comment> ::= < /*> <ASCII-string> <*/> <ASCII-string> ::= <ASCII-character>|<ASCII-character><ASCII-string> 2A6--whitespace: strings of spaces, carriage returns, line feeds, and tabs 2A7--each control character (not strings) 2B--preprocessing by programmer defined rules 2C--preprocessing (either 2A or 2B) and secondary processing NOTE: Backus-Naur Form (BNF) is too limited to describe very much of Ameba. For example,an Ameba function call consists of a function name (i.e., <symbol>) followed by some arbitrary number of characters (i.e., <ASCII-string). That is: <function>::=<symbol><ASCII-STRING> However, a function may use the Ameba accumulator, as a calculator uses its accumulator) for a prefix argument, which may be any data type. And, a function parses its argument string however it needs; thus, semantically an Ameba function is more like the following: <expression-1> <function> <expression-2> except the expression-1 and expression-2 syntax may be user defined. Thus, addition may be 1+2, 1,2+, (+ 1 2), etc. 3) For rapid prototyping, Ameba must have an immediate evaluation mode that is as near to real-time processing as possible. 4) To facilitate making functions with any syntax, there may be neither reserved words nor fixed punctuation. 5) To satisfy 4) requires an invariant subset of the Ameba pseudocode. Thus several symbols (e.g., - and minus) may be used that translate into the same pseudo-code value. 6) Symbols may be overloaded to alter the meaning of a symbol, but the meaning of invariant pseudo-code will not change. 7) Secondary lexical processing occurs after preprocessing. Thus, it operates on pseudocode instead of characters. For example, preprocessing does not convert character strings into binary numbers; secondary processing does. ================== PSEUDOCODE REQUIREMENTS Ameba pseudocode is vaguely similar to Lisp symbol table, because each entry consists of a symbol and definition similar to a property list. PC-1) Each entry is part of an array with indices 0, 1, 2, .... The index of an entry is the value of the pseudocode for that entry, called a token. PC-2) Each symbol is a string of tokens. PC-2) Each definition is a string of tokens. See: http://computer.wikia.com/wiki/The_Design_of_An_Object_Base In my ultimate dream, Ameba would implement a version control system, and source would only be used to make program listings. There would be an integrated development environment (IDE) so that source text would be unnecessary. I have also thought about integrating tests and test suites (e.g., regression testing). But, I am too old to continue and my programming skills are out of date. It would take me a couple of years to learn enough about programming on microprocessors to start coding. It was a hobby that I enjoyed. I could go on, but will stop unless someone asks a question.

It is kind of you to say that, but I am not. My name is in fact, Ed Earl, and it was my name long before the movie in which Burt Reynolds played Ed Earl the sheriff.

Forgive me, I am unsure what you ask. I know there are people who have claimed to have proved God exists and God does not exist. I have not examined many of them; thus, I am not an expert. However, that people claim both proof of existence and otherwise means there is no consensus. In fact, people of different faiths fight over whether their belief about God or gods is the right one. Thus, I find it hard to believe that any such proof, one way or the other, can ever make sense much less be correct.That is evidence enough for me to form an opinion and say no such proof exists, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_god. If you believe otherwise, that is OK with me. I believe being kind to everyone is important, and that fighting is wrong. Scientists observe and explain what they observe. Since this thread is about scientific research. God cannot be scientifically observed; thus, science cannot have an opinion about God. In other words, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, which was the basis of my statements (see quote below). I am pretty sure there is consensus by scientists on these two statements because they are not my original thoughts. However, I do not have references.

You are welcome, and you put a smile on my face. Thank you.

LOL, we are both old, bald and bearded. He is much smarter.

I think scientists are befuddled about DM and DE. It is really difficult to understand something that cannot be seen by any kind of instrument. It reminds me of the blind men and the elephant. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published 5 July 1687, which was the beginning of modern physics. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity have been studied for little more than a century. The phenomenon of these sciences can be observed using instruments. DM and DE discoveries are more recent and understanding is slow because they cannot be directly observed. Speculation without observation is often incorrect, even when one uses math to help with the speculation. Otherwise, speculations are usually incorrect. For that reason, I have not published my own speculations. But, since you started it. I will venture a wild ass guess. There may be subatomic dark matter particles, analogs to quarks, that combine to make analogs to neutrons, protons and electrons, which in turn make dark matter analogs to atoms, which clump together to make bigger dark matter objects. Maybe there are DM stars and galaxies. But, AFAIK there is no observational evidence for any of this wild ass guess. It is more likely my guess is wrong than right. I have a few more of them. I have fun inventing them, but don't propose them because I don't like someone who actually knows something about DM and DE telling me my idea is screwy. You are more brave than I.

OK. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-beta_pruning

You have asked many questions not related to the OP. They show you need a basic science education, which is more than you should expect from this forum. I recommend you log in to https://www.khanacademy.org/ and study physics, chemistry and maybe math to learn the basics. It is much more fun than sitting in public or private school rooms.

I suspect that scientists do more or less agree on the subject of consciousness. But, there are many who believe consciousness is something spiritual that cannot be modeled in silicon and software. Perhaps it is more accurate to say there are several consensus.

The universe is composed of mass-energy + dark matter + dark energy. However, we do not know what any of these things are. Is any of it real, or is everything a hologram. For sure, nothing is as it appears. Everything we see can be sucked into a black hole, then cannot be seen.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound#Propagation_of_sound Perhaps thunder is heard some places and is reflected, refracted and attenuated such that it is not heard in other places at similar distances from the source. High altitude lightening can be seen from a greater distance than lightening within clouds and from cloud to ground; thus, it may not be heard because its thunder is too distant to be heard.

Put your finger into a candle flame until you know energy is real. NO DO NOT What are you asking?

I agree that politics, at least in the US, are $#!+, and are helping to make climate change worse with pitifully few exceptions. I fear that future shock has affected the political system as a Taser affects a person. The political system responds too slowly to do anything valuable. By the time laws are passed, the reason for them has passed, at least for transient phenomenon. My hope lies in technology and businesses.

Hi Steven, Your post is about many things other than small things, i.e., quantum mechanics. That is OK, but makes it hard for me to know exactly what you expect from me. First, I cannot answer "Why so small." I am an engineer and know a bit of science, by no means an expert, but science cannot answer metaphysical questions such as why. Scientists observe and explain what they observe. If you wish to learn some physics, there are some really good and interesting (imo) videos on youtube. I recommend ones by Leonard Susskind, who is a professor at Stanford, and has worked with Stephen Hawking on black holes, among other things. These lectures have some math, so it helps to know calculus, sets, and linear algebra, but not absolutely necessary. You didn't tell much about your math background, but https://www.khanacademy.org/ has math lessons that might improve your understanding of the Leonard Susskind lectures. There are videos on youtube done by many universities, including MIT, Harvard, and Berkley. The TED Talks videos are also interesting. Another Topic: I had back surgery that left me in continual pain for many years. No pain medication helped. Finally, I began meditating, and over time my pain has abated. Now I am pain free most of the time. This phenomenon is documented in medical journals, it is not just my imagination. The brain is plastic and changes all the time. Moreover, these changes are guided by our thoughts. (See youtube videos on neurology). I do not know, but perhaps a bipolar person can lessen the bad effects of their condition via meditation or self hypnosis. I wish you the very best. A friend of mine was bipolar.

Welcome to SFN. I am surprised no one has replied. Your English is OK. I know nothing about ANDROID and very little about programming games; thus, I am unable to help with your request. Good luck.

Great answer. By understanding causal factors (e.g., automobile exhaust) we may use technology to abate climate change. It is plausible that understanding psychological and social factors that got us to this point on the cusp of a major climate change may lead to strategies that help us modify people's behavior to reduce their effects on climate. But social engineering is IMO unlikely to help. IMO we should focus on causes, not blame.

Below are links to a couple of videos that may help you. Consciousness is hotly debated with no scientific theory, but everyone seems to have their own hypothesis. There seems to be less controversy about emotions. Search youtube for consciousness and emotions for more videos. Wikipedia is a good place to start for reading material. Search this forum for discussions about consciousness and emotions; some have recent posts. Others will post in this thread, no doubt. http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/G6CVj5IQkzk/mqdefault.jpg

What do you mean by "every parameter maximized for any specific occurrence"?

I believe the answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#Uniform_acceleration

I will not do your homework. If you have questions other than, "What are the answers," I will try to help.

no change in entropy See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isentropic_process

I have lived in tornado alley in the US where thunderstorms are frequent. Lightening without thunder is common. I do not know why. Perhaps upper atmospheric lightening does not make thunder.

An analogy: The house is too hot. Dad says I'm not to blame, I bought a house with windows and fans. Mom says, I'm not to blame, I cook and clean. Bobby says, I'm not to blame, the fan switches are too high for me to reach and I am not strong enough to open the windows. Betty says, I am not to blame, it is hot because of the weather. So, they argue about who is to blame. What good comes from assigning blame?

This recent news may be relevant to this discussion. Although, it did not kill infected birds the disease became more virulent over time, which is a different scenario than discussed herein. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=127992&org=NSF&from=news

Unfortunately, that isn't funny. If you look hard, you might find a Texas school teaching evolution. Seriously, Texas is a modern place, they took down the hitching posts last year.