Lots of concurrency

Justin Walsh jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Tue Oct 30 05:03:06 UTC 2001


Guys! Please don't take offence but, forget the
"objects TALKING to each other".
The point of departure of any discussion, to do with simultaneous processes,
has to be in the abstract Classes. This was discussed pretty thoroughly by
Aristotle.
It was further investigated by Kant over 300 years ago. ie
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/ancon.html
If you start too far into detail your simultaneous design will fail every
time.
It is just another one of those eastern tricks, like logic, Zero, Positional
Notation ...
That we in the west are so slow to pick up on.
Unlike Mathematics where you start from the definition and end with the
concept.
Here we start with the concept and end with the definition (of an object).
I remember A.K. saying something about inventing the future, not the past.
I suggest you stick it on the fridge.


THE CLUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF ALL PURE
CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERSTANDING
Section 2
$9
THE LOGICAL FUNCTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING IN
JUDGMENTS
If we abstract from all content of a judgment, and con-
sider only the mere form of understanding, we find that the
function of thought in judgment can be brought under four
heads, each of which contains three moments. They may be
conveniently represented in the following table:
P 107
I
Quantity of Judgments
..Universal
..Particular
..Singular
II
Relation
..Categorical
..Hypothetical
..Disjunctive
III
Quality
..Affirmative
..Negative
..Infinite
IV
..Modality
..Problematic
..Assertoric
.Apodeictic

As this division appears to depart in some, though not in
any essential respects, from the technical distinctions ordin-
arily recognised by logicians, the following observations may
serve to guard against any possible misunderstanding. ..

Caio
Justin




----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at atlas.otago.ac.nz>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency


> Andres Valloud <sqrmax at prodigy.net>, writing about sequential thinking,
> cited:
> a theatrical production an account of a long exchange of messages
> which are answered?  If so, how many simultaneous "processes" would a
> typical theatrical production have?
>
> concentrating on the *verbal* aspects; whereas one can certainly have a
> verbal interchange and a non-verbal interchange elsewhere happening at
> the same time,
>
> and
> When I was learning how to type I noticed that I'd think what to say,
>
> again, concentrating on a *verbal* task.
>
> I dare say we're all agreed that
>  - people can do more than one thing at once
>  - people can't do MANY things at once
>  - people can only say or type one thing at a time
>
> The question I think is interesting is whether telling students to
> think in terms of objects TALKING to each other makes it harder for
> them to think of concurrent implementations.  Would some other
> metaphor (perhaps sending couriers with messages, or thinking about
> a factory with things concurrently moving from machine to machine
> at the same time) make it easier for them to think of and understand
> concurrency?
>
> All I know about Ken Kahn's ToonTalk is what I've read in this thread,
> but it sounds as though uses a "physical" rather than "verbal"
> metaphor, so I think his observations are particularly interesting here.
>
>
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list