Is any competent one here?? Correct the RYBKA libels!

[geots]

Don't feed the trolls...

I dont know if (ahem) Carol is right or wrong. But I had much rather be him who has the nerve to come on this forum and tell you what he believes- than to be all the people so far who know nothing about nothing- only saying it has to be true if Hyatt says it is. So if you dont agree with Bob and others, you are a troll. Much better than being a follow the crowd simpleton.

I had a calculus teacher that told me "if you integrate 2xdx, you get x^2, and if you differentiate x^2 you get 2xdx." Everyone believed him, and the book proved why this is so. Was "following the crowd" wrong in light of such supporting evidence???

The weakest analogy I have ever heard. You best stick to math.

[Romy]

If the logic used by the Confederacy is of the same high level that the integration of 2x dx give x^2....
(after all, Prof. Hyatt asserts it is so, so did his calculus teacher, and his fellow student, and their book, as he told us)
.... then I think Mr Rajlich can sleep very soundly in his bed against such a pack.

This type of careless thinking is a typical phenomenon, but very regret-worthy when it trashes to a reputation and character of another.

Critical thinking first. Not dogchasing!

[Romy]

I had a calculus teacher that told me "if you integrate 2xdx, you get x^2, and if you differentiate x^2 you get 2xdx." Everyone believed him, and the book proved why this is so. Was "following the crowd" wrong in light of such supporting evidence???

The weakest analogy I have ever heard. You best stick to math.

I recommend against him stick to math, as his math is wrong. Integrate x^2 dx you gets x^2 + C, not x^2.

It is ultra-ironic blunder by Mr Hyatt, because x^2 is ONE of the possible outcome (if by other constraint C happen to be zero).

I explain the irony.

It is the same way that decompile is one-to-many and so non-function. The real RYBKA source may be one of the decompile outputs. Or may not!

HERE IS THE META-LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING, not for trolls.

The evidence is consistent with Mr Rajlich having "stolen" parts of the source code of Fruit.
The evidence is also consistent with Mr Rajlich NOT having "stolen" parts of the source code of Fruit.

All balance between them is conjecture, Mr Hyatt can lecture us about mathematic probabilities likelihoods Bayesians but we have caught example of his mathematic blundering above.

More than this, I charge for.

[geots]

It is a demonstrable fact that compilation with the best compilers is a many-to-one process. Not a one-to-one process.

a computer scientist will support is that yes, going from asm to C is a 1 to many mapping.

Thank you for this admission.

It did not come out earlier among the learned commentators. Better they see it now, when they have access to brake function and gear, then after the irreversibility line is crossed.

I have stated that _many_ times. And I have explained that one does not need to go from asm back to C to compare an asm to an original C program. One can examine the semantics of the C source, and the semantics of the asm source, and compare them. There is no many to one or one to many there. When both are reduced to the same least common denominator, namely semantics, you end up with just "one" semantic description if the two programs are equivalent. Please go away.

But going from a C to ASM is not.

Well, with a given compiler and given settings, it is not. Else, you are wrong.

That's the flaw in your ointment.

It is flaw or fly in someone else's balm, but it is irrelevant to mine.

The asm expresses the semantics of the C code.

Aha.
Are you unclear about the meanings of syntax and grammar, with application to C compilation process?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept that a compiler recognizes the syntax, determines the semantics, and produces an object file that expresses those semantics? The compiler might produce many different object files depending on optimization settings you choose. But the semantics _must_ be identical each time, else the compiler is broken and the program won't do what you want.

Again, please go away.

I have counted 4 times you have asked him to please go away, maybe 5 times. Is there some hidden rule that he must agree with you or leave? The worst that could happen if he stays is that some of your "followers" may begin to think for themselves. Wouldnt that be a travesty.

[Romy]

Again, please go away.

I have counted 4 times you have asked him to please go away, maybe 5 times. Is there some hidden rule that he must agree with you or leave? The worst that could happen if he stays is that some of your "followers" may begin to think for themselves. Wouldnt that be a travesty.

Something worse even could happen!

Prof. Hyatt could learn some calculus if I stays!

Then he would not support nonsense like "if you integrate 2xdx, you get x^2, and if you differentiate x^2 you get 2xdx".

He could correctly have written: "if you integrate 2xdx, you get x^2+C, and if you differentiate x^2 w.r.t. x you get 2x (that too with a caveat)"

You can count two, even three, mistake in one sentence.

Then the sentence used to illustrate it is good to follow the pack of Mr Hyatt, calculus teacher (dubious), other student, and text book/s (more dubious).

Beyond ironic!

So by repeated invite to me to leave, Mr Hyatt by implication invite IGNORANCE to join. Is that the ICGA standart?

I ask again:

Is any competent one here?

[Sean Evans]

<sigh>

A troll that responds to himself -- the worst kind....

jm

[bob]

I had a calculus teacher that told me "if you integrate 2xdx, you get x^2, and if you differentiate x^2 you get 2xdx." Everyone believed him, and the book proved why this is so. Was "following the crowd" wrong in light of such supporting evidence???

Please do not write such nonsenses.

If your calculus teacher taught this, it explains much.

I suggest you misunderstood the teaching.

If you integrate 2xdx, you get not x^2, but instead x^2+C, where C be a constant of integration, and unknown without limit supplied.

If you think the book proved him right in saying it was x^2, then the book should be burned.

Please be careful when writing exclusive nonsense.

Since I included differentiating x^2, it was obvious (to me) that C = 0...

[wgarvin]

Don't feed the trolls...

I dont know if (ahem) Carol is right or wrong. But I had much rather be him who has the nerve to come on this forum and tell you what he believes- than to be all the people so far who know nothing about nothing- only saying it has to be true if Hyatt says it is. So if you dont agree with Bob and others, you are a troll. Much better than being a follow the crowd simpleton.

Well everyone is free to express their own opinion, but the particular way that he is choosing to do it is kind of aggravating.

[bob]

I dont know if (ahem) Carol is right or wrong. But I had much rather be him who has the nerve to come on this forum and tell you what he believes- than to be all the people so far who know nothing about nothing- only saying it has to be true if Hyatt says it is. So if you dont agree with Bob and others, you are a troll. Much better than being a follow the crowd simpleton.

You are in parts correct.

I am being extra gentle to Mr Hyatt out of respect, like Mr Kasparov responded to Mr Fischer.

Within the space of 5-10 minutes he wrote both in this thread--

All modern optimizing compilers are quite "sophisticated" (although the ones used to compile Rybka back in 2005-6 were not as good as they are today)

Bob did _not_ write that. Learn how to follow quotes in a post...

and

Bullshit, again. The fortran compiler from Cray was just as good at optimizing as any compiler around today, and actually better

Bob _did_ write that, and it was true in 1995, and is still true today for the rare site that still runs an old Cray. The compiler, and the people that wrote it, were _good_. Optimizing has not changed much in 15 years....

So first he says that "modern" (in context, 2010-11) compilers are notedly superior to one's even from 2005-6.

No he didn't...

Then, in almost his next breath, he makes assertion that the compiler from days of Cray Blitz (1986, or maybe even 1616 since, to Mr Hyatt, even Shakespeare needed to be exonerated from cloning/copying of later Crafty) are superior to the 2010-11 compilers.

Nope. Cray Blitz was active until the end of 1994. Go look up some of the publications from the members of the old CFT compiler group... You should not be talking compilers with someone intimately familiar with them, when you have _zero_ background in them yourself...

See the contradiction?

You bet I do...

To clear it up for your genius-ship, here goes:

=======================quote on=======================

The asm expresses the semantics of the C code. It makes copying obvious to the casual observer, once it is laid out.

Pardon, but you are very underestimating of compiler sophistication. The asm may be auto-optimised to the degree of unrecognisability. If SMP involved, more so.

In the day of Cray and HiTech it was different, a compiler was just a little more than an assembler. But RYBKA is of 2005-6, not 1616 or 1986.

All modern optimizing compilers are quite "sophisticated" (although the ones used to compile Rybka back in 2005-6 were not as good as they are today), but this "auto-optimised to the degree of unrecognisability" is nonsense.

...

===========================quote off===================

Fortran is red herring (only ills use Fortran today) so do not let him pretend something, like C compiler is progress but Fortran is not, to explain above faux.

First you don't have the mental ability to follow quotes and attribute same to the correct person. Then you say "Fortran is for ills" whatever that means. Which is pretty interesting. I am sure our school of engineering, our physics and chemistry departments are all happy to know that they are "ills" (whatever that means) since they actively program in Fortran every day...

Where do you get this crap??? And please don't reply that "you pull it out of your A$$". I get that, already...

To illustrate ten more of his extrasense, I have not enough space in the margin for. But I give one more.

In my challenge, P,Q,R,S,T sources (he mistakes first for exe or asm or pseudocode), he say he can quickly tell which 3 are functionally identical by using compiler. BUT IN MY STATEMENT OF OFFER I CLEARLY STATE NO COMPILER/COMPUTER WOULD BE AVAILABLE! Purpose was to show, apparently very different source can compile by error-free compiler with unchanged settings to identical executable.

I clearly said I would use a semantic comparison tool. NOT a compiler. Again, can you not read and recall? Comparing source programs to catch student plagiarism is a refined art. Two students will take the same program and try to obfuscate the origin in many different ways. Change variables. Change loops. Change structure by creating new procedures to move code around. And the semantic analysis tools find that the programs are _still_ identical semantically. And they both still get zeroes...

Nobody here has discussed trying to hand-compile 5 different source programs and comparing the results. Nobody here has done that in the current investigation. So what does this have to do with _anything_. Oh, I get it. Crank up the noise to see if you can bury the real facts in lots of noise, so that everyone gives up because of the poor signal/noise ratio... Won't work.

Enough.

But he has helped hundreds of student and programmer, including Mr Rajlich when he was novitiate, so I give him much respect for past, and encouragement to be more careful today.

Why do you want to resort to the old Rolf-like language mangling to try to disguise who you really are? All the intentional word mangling, grammar mangling just make you look like an idiot. Wait, that would be true without any mangling...

To my central point he has no refutation. Decompile produces A source and not THE source.

No argument. But no one is talking about doing that, so it has absolutely _no_ relevance to the current investigation.

In 10 places he writes me (ME!!) explanation of SEMANTICS. It is amusing. I know all. But no offense I take.

Do you know the semantic meaning of "bullshit"??? Sure you do...

Point is, semantics of the decompile source is NOT identical to Fruit semantics (as he implies), except in the triviata or the inevitabilities (if only one way to do something small well, it must be that way).

Semantics is sometimes very close correspondence (Fruit fragment to RYBKA Beta fragment), but that says nothing to the allegation of copying when combined with the inherent irreversibility of the decompile process.

I give an example. Only 1 baby in 1000 dies unexplained at home during first 6 months of life. One woman, 3 out of her 4 babies died like that. Does that make her (or someone close) almost certain murderer? When you understand it not do that at all, you understand the power my previous paragraph. I do not expect to find the meta-level understanding here.

Instead, the dogs to bark, baboon to pack-chase, and Mr Hyatt to attack. All are performing their predestined function from nature. God is great!

I am in a computer science department

I am a computer science department. But not Alabaman.

Pure bullshit... I post my real name and location where I work. Feel free to do the same. Or not since it would fictitious anyway...

[bob]

It is a demonstrable fact that compilation with the best compilers is a many-to-one process. Not a one-to-one process.

a computer scientist will support is that yes, going from asm to C is a 1 to many mapping.

Thank you for this admission.

It did not come out earlier among the learned commentators. Better they see it now, when they have access to brake function and gear, then after the irreversibility line is crossed.

I have stated that _many_ times. And I have explained that one does not need to go from asm back to C to compare an asm to an original C program. One can examine the semantics of the C source, and the semantics of the asm source, and compare them. There is no many to one or one to many there. When both are reduced to the same least common denominator, namely semantics, you end up with just "one" semantic description if the two programs are equivalent. Please go away.

But going from a C to ASM is not.

Well, with a given compiler and given settings, it is not. Else, you are wrong.

That's the flaw in your ointment.

It is flaw or fly in someone else's balm, but it is irrelevant to mine.

The asm expresses the semantics of the C code.

Aha.
Are you unclear about the meanings of syntax and grammar, with application to C compilation process?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept that a compiler recognizes the syntax, determines the semantics, and produces an object file that expresses those semantics? The compiler might produce many different object files depending on optimization settings you choose. But the semantics _must_ be identical each time, else the compiler is broken and the program won't do what you want.

Again, please go away.

I have counted 4 times you have asked him to please go away, maybe 5 times. Is there some hidden rule that he must agree with you or leave? The worst that could happen if he stays is that some of your "followers" may begin to think for themselves. Wouldnt that be a travesty.

I wonder why that is? He is intentionally using broken/mangled English to hide his identity. He is making false claims (a computer scientist, indeed). So yes, I would like to see him "go away." "far away".

I think the problem you have is that many of _your_ (and Vas' followers) have started to think for themselves and started to drift away. We've led the horses to a lake of water, but we can't make you drink if you don't want to. Die of thirst if you want to be stubborn, doesn't matter to me. Facts _are_ facts... And facts are _all_ we are providing. No speculation. No guesses. Just pure facts...