Thursday, August 18, 2016

Google Page Rank

Graph: Damping:
The code is available for public edit. Whereas introductory article says that damping factor affects the speed of convergence (too low is too slow but too high will result in oscillations), I see that it affects the steady state: zero tends all nodes to rank 1, damping = 1 drives all votes to the most referenced node.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

My guess that p-value stands for Popper's falsification gets confirmed

I started to find posts that relate two. I have realized that Ho = all swans are white has a bell curve of delta-pulse at the white ordinal and zero elsewhere. This means that confidence interval is also located on this axis and all swans that we find should be white. As soon as first black is discovered, we fall off the confidence interval and reject the hypothesis.

If we can grade the swan to shades of gray between black and white, we can draw a bell curve and ... wait .. which bell curve? How do we get theoretical curve?

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Why serious scientists cannot hold the photosynthetic oxygen in the atmosphere?

They call the photosynthetic origin of the O2 a junk. I back up the earth science question for historic reference. The reaction of scientists is discussed at the Wikipedia.

We are told that photosynthesis, developed a couple of billion years ago has produced all the atmospheric oxygen. I wonder, why did the process stop? Why do modern plants prefer to recover the entropy whereas ancient ones...
Actually, the ancient ones separated the carbon-hydrogen fuel from the oxygen. The modern trees consist of this fuel which re-joins with the oxygen afterlife. But why didn't this happen to the ancient plants? Where did the ancient carbohydrates go? If it is the oil and gas we can burn it. Why do you say that we do not have enough fossils to burn all the oxygen? Where are the ancient plant bodies deposited so securely that we say for sure that they cannot come back into the contact with the oxygen?

put on hold as unclear what you're asking by bonmartplannapusFredgansub 20 hours ago

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.
Well I have not heard that photosynthesis has stopped! We have a cyclical thing going with the composition of our atmosphere. The oceans, the soils and the plants use CO2 and their WASTE PRODUCT is Oxygen. Pretty stable system. I don't think there is any difference between ancient plant material and present day plant material. Photosynthesis is a pretty cool invention by bacteria and then the plants who fine tuned the process of using the energy of sunlight to make their own FOOD. Carbohydrates to be precise. Just because a resource is available should it be used up? – stormy yesterday
@stormy You contradict yourself. Saying that photosynthesis keeps increasing the O2 level, which stays stable, is self-defeating. Aside from your logorrhea, what is the problem to "use" the resources. I am asking, why cannot you burn out all the the ancient fossils and oxygen, separated 2 bln years ago, to restore 2 bln-old conditions? – Little Alien yesterday    
I did say that there is a cyclical system for our atmosphere. Photosynthesis takes CO2 that the oceans, tilled soils, decomposing organic matter and of course man made CO2, MAKES its own food to store the energy and water and O2 are byproducts. Do you know what the conditions were 2 billion years ago? I give up, I've got LOGORRHEA after all. – stormy yesterday
None of the stuff you have posted so far makes any real sense. It is rambling and difficult to understand and you provide no evidence for it. If you want to have a serious academic conversation about this then rephrase your question. Otherwise this will just be closed as another junk question. – bon 23 hours ago
The photosynthetic origination of oxygen 2 bln years ago is the official dogma. Google atmosphere, oxygenand the second match will be mine Geological history of the oxygen. Rambling, no real sense, no evidence? It is nice to hear how you appreciate it. All the question that make your dogma look stupid must be closed as a junk. That is the only possible way to have an academic discussion. – Little Alien 23 hours ago    

2 Answers

If I understand it right, you are assuming that in the beginning we had CO2, which was then split to organic carbon and O2 via photosynthesis. And now you are asking if it's possible to reverse all of that by burning all organic carbon, so that it consumes the O2.
Your assumption is not quite right. Oxygen is the most abundant element in Earth's crust and mantle, locked up in rocks. Rocks are made out of mostly oxygen. Atmospheric oxygen is negligible, when looked up in the context of the entire Earth. Oxygen is constantly being consumed and produced by reactions between the atmosphere and the solid Earth.
Not only that, there are processes in the Earth that take sediments and pull it down deep into the Earth, in subduction zones. Anything can be subducted: both organic unoxidised carbon and oxidised carbon in the form of carbonates (e.g. limestone). This goes down to tens to several hundreds of kilometres, far away from any interaction with the atmosphere.
As an example, let's say that you have a forest which that consumes a certain amount of CO2 and H2O, generating organic carbon-hydrogen and releasing the excess O2 to the atmosphere. Now you have carbon (and hydrogen) locked up in solids. Some of this organic material burns, decomposes, or otherwise reacts with atmospheric O2 to generate CO2 and H2O all over again. However, some of it is buried deep in the Earth's crust (that's how we get coal, gas and oil). So in theory, we can extract and mine everything, and then burn it. However, some of it is buried even deeper and is carried down bysubduction to the Earth's mantle. In there, it is far away from our reach and there is no way we can extract it to burn it. So the oxygen generated while producing this organic material lingers in the atmosphere, but the organic material itself is deep below in the mantle, unable to react with any oxygen (as O2, any redox reactions are a different story).
To sum it up, your point of view is too simplistic as it does not take into account the Earth as a whole, but only top soil and atmosphere.
You overlook that I try to put the official dogma straight. From the very first lines it says that O2 that we enjoy today was produced by Photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms. Your statement that we have pure O2 all over the Earth crust (shadowing a cast of doubt upon the photosynthetic origins of the oxygen) contradicts to fact that we have got it in the atmosphere only 2 bln years ago, right with first photosysthesis. – Little Alien 23 hours ago   
So, you underestimate the simplistic view. If you say that it does not hold the water, attribute it to the official dogma. Hardly it means that photosynthetic microbes did extract pure O2 from the rock instead of doing what photosynthsis is, which is Co2 -> O2 that you call "too simplistic". Do not separate mysimplistic view from the dominant dogma that we have in the science about the Earth. Defending that dogma by saying that its statement is too simplistic may be acceptable but it should not be. – Little Alien23 hours ago   
The official dogma says that O2 that we enjoy has the photosyntheic origin, which means that in addition to huge amount of O2, there must be some about of Coal and Hydrogen. But we do not have them (to reunite with free O2). Where is the all of that? I just want to tie the ends. What is simplistic in that? What is your solution after you messed the litospheric O2 into the picture? I do not see how this explains anything. I do not even see it consistent with the facts that we had no litospheric O2 in the atmosphere, despite of the immense geological processes in prephotosynthetic. – Little Alien 23 hours ago    
There is no pure O2 in the Earth's crust. As I said, it's locked up in rocks. As to your question of where are the "coal and hydrogen", I already mentioned in the answer that it goes down in subduction zones. I will edit the answer to clarify it even further. – Michael 21 hours ago
@LittleAlien -- Re your reading of that wikipedia article that "From the very first lines it says that O2 that we enjoy today was produced by photosynthetic prokaryotic organisms." That wikipedia article most certainly does not say that. Moreover, wikipedia is not the be all and end all. Some wikipedia articles are well written, others are not. Wikipedia is not the "official dogma." This question is based on your erroneous reading that photosynthesis has stopped. It has not. Look outside and you'll see plants with green leaves due to chlorophyl; they are photosynthesizing right now. – David Hammen 18 hours ago

Photosynthesis has not stopped. It happens all the time, splitting water and carbon dioxide, and producing oxygen and carbohydrates. Likewise, organic matter rots and decomposes all the time, requiring oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. The Keeling curve actually illustrates this quite nicely: most of the land mass where this happens lies in the north, and during the summer photosynthesis dominates whereas in the winter, decomposition dominates. As a result, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere decreases in the northern summer and increases in the northern winter.
Your question about using up all of the oxygen in the atmosphere by burning all fossil fuels is a good one. If indeed you could get hold of all of the carbon that, over the past 2 billion years, has been separated from the oxygen by photosynthesis, then you could do that. But the carbon is not accessible: only a small fraction is actually in the form of fossil fuels. A much larger part is simply dispersed in the form of organic matter in the sediments of the earth (both on land and in the sea), and it may not be concentrated enough to actually burn by itself. For example, soil has a significant fraction of carbon, but it does not usually burn. More carbon has been subducted in sediments through plate tectonics and now resides dozens or hundreds of kilometers down in the Earth mantle. (A fraction of it will eventually come back out as carbon dioxide in volcanic eruptions).
In other words, most of the carbon that has resulted from photosynthesis is no longer accessible for burning, and consequently not available to react with the atmospheric oxygen.
Do you mean just one thing, the limestone when speak about inaccessible sediments at the bed of the ocean? I do not understand why soil carbon is inaccessible. The soil of full of life, of bacteria. How can it be if they cannot burn the food? – Little Alien yesterday   
I also learn the human logic a bit. It seems that other members of the community won't receive the answer if they do not hear about ongoing photosynthesys. People seem necessary to speak about they things they know very well about. When I say about O2 cycle's inability to close the ancient carbohydrates, I do not mean that there is not O2 cycle anymore. Why is it so necessary to pollute the matter with the kid stuff? I would not ask about burning the bodies of ancient plants if I did not realize the reality of O2 cycle. – Little Alienyesterday    
Look at the Keeling curve yourself. It says that carbon burns naturally. You get increase of CO2 at autumn because the leaves burn, despite "we cannot do this because of low concentrations". The microorganisms can do this if they are lucky. Otherwise, the nature smoulders the carbohydrates itself. The reaction is spontaneous. I am not aware of the chemical phenomenon that says that there is a minimal amount of C and H that is subject to oxidation. All the H and C burns itself as long as the oxygen is available. Your curve proves that. – Little Alien 11 hours ago   
Otherwise, you should refer to the law of chemistry that deals microamounts of C separately and tell at which concentrations C stops to burn spontaneously and explain why do we C have so rare in microamounts these days, contrasting with the oxygen buildup era. – Little Alien 11 hours ago   

Monday, August 24, 2015

Hamming distance online



Thursday, May 21, 2015

Two interpretations of (n+m)!/(n!m!) combinations

Let's say we have 5!/2!/3! combinations. This means on one hand that we have 5 elements, 12345, yielding 5! permutations. If we abstract away the order of last 3 items, we will get 20 = 5!/3! pairs (2 first letters): 12,13,14,15,23,24,25,34,35,45 and same pairs in opposite order. If we additionally abstract away the order of these 2 first letters, we will get those 10 combinations.

On the other hand, 5! divided by 2! and 3! means that we have  two elements of first class and 3 elements of second type. In other words, we are looking at permutations of 11000: 11000, 10100, 10010, 10001, 01100, 01010, 01001, 00110, 00101, 00011. Again, we have 10 such strings.

There is a one-to-one mapping between the combinations:
$$\begin{matrix} 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\ 11000 & 10100 & 10010 & 10001 & 01100 & 01010 & 01001 & 00110 & 00101 & 00011\\ 12 & 13 & 14 & 15 & 23  & 24 & 25 & 34 & 35 & 45\end{matrix}$$

This is not a big surprise since choosing 2 elements out of 5 is the same as choosing same 2 of 5 and placing them together. The latter can be interpreted as a 2-head. Then number of 2-element heads is equal to the number of ways to pick 2 elements out of 5.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Bans: freenode#windows

The following
for /l %%x in (1, 1, 100) do (
  echo %%x
  echo int main^(^) {int a = 0; for^(; a ^< %%x00000 ; a++^); return a;} > prog.c
  gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm && p.exe
caused "gcc failed since p.exe is locked" and before firing Windows report, I asked what can I do in IRC channel. It is obviously Windows issue.

  • 21:16.00
    Hi, I have noticed that when I use gcc p.c -o p.exe && p.exe in the loop, the compiler fails occasionally because p file is locked.
  • 21:16.06
    Seligas has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds.
  • 21:16.07
    RobinCoyote has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds.
  • 21:17.05
    Relapse joined the channel.
  • 21:17.57
    Deihmos has quit: Ping timeout: 256 seconds.
  • 21:18.13
    ariscop_ has quit: Ping timeout: 250 seconds.
  • 21:19.24
    badon has quit: Disconnected by services.
  • 21:19.25
    badon_ joined the channel.
  • 21:19.35
    naph-W joined the channel.
  • 21:19.53
    badon_ is now known as badon.
  • 21:20.04
    It seems that windows does not close the process file before proceeding to the next command. Where do I report the bug?
  • 21:20.06
    lcqf joined the channel.
  • 21:20.40
    its not Windows problem, if you don't release your file handles properly.
  • 21:24.02
    toxictra_ joined the channel.
  • 21:24.09
    exixt has quit: Quit: - nbs-irc 2.39 - -
  • 21:24.25
    lewellyn has quit: Ping timeout: 255 seconds.
  • 21:24.35
    Salastil joined the channel.
  • 21:24.45
    TheBard: What do you mean releasing file handles properly?
  • 21:25.11
    its in the MSDN docs.
  • 21:25.24
    go fuck yourself
  • 21:26.27
    kggr has quit: Ping timeout: 256 seconds.
  • 21:26.40
    jackbrown has quit: Ping timeout: 255 seconds.
  • 21:26.55
    kggr joined the channel.
  • 21:26.57
    ulrichard joined the channel.
  • 21:27.05
    toxictrash has quit: Ping timeout: 265 seconds.
  • 21:27.09
    Windows terminates my app. I expect that it has closed the streams properly. It is windows bug otherwise.
  • 21:27.21
 it isnt
  • 21:28.04
    Minnebo has quit: Quit: Leaving...
  • 21:28.33
    Do you mean that Windows does not close handles properly and it is my bug?
  • 21:29.32
    Nope. Its all your bug. But it sounds like you have a programming issue there, so ask in the relevant programming channel. Like #cygwin maybe?
  • 21:30.01
    no, its a programming issue with YOUR have fun
  • 21:30.24
    If I had Windows not closing Photoshop, you would tell that it is a photography issue?
  • 21:30.35
  • 21:30.43
    What should I program here?
  • 21:30.45
    rexwin_ left the channel.
  • 21:30.47
    go away troll
  • 21:31.11
    It is nice when trolls take over a channel and expell users as trolls.
  • 21:31.44
    last_staff joined the channel.
  • 21:32.11
    This is an OS support channel, not necessarily developer help. Expecially as you are wandering outside of the basics of app development.
  • 21:32.34
    #winapi is probably the most appropriate channel
  • 21:33.12
    circ-user-vwR7x: it's not 'Windows' it's your code or the tools.
  • 21:33.19
    There is nothing programming here. Why winapi? Which function should I use and why? Which function should I use if windows cannot terminate the approperly?
  • 21:33.24
    last_staff has quit: Client Quit.
  • 21:33.28
    App is terminating. It cannot call anything.
  • 21:33.32
    we're not a programming channel.
  • 21:33.48
    You are not logic channel.
  • 21:34.05
    circ-user-vwR7x: we have channel guidelines linked in /topic which you are ignoring
  • 21:34.12
    Aeiortv left the channel.
  • 21:34.23
    circ-user-vwR7x: people have tried to sugges t more appropriate channels which you are ignoring for arguments
  • 21:34.37
    Which guideline is saying that Windows, unralated to programming questions must be called "programming issues"?
  • 21:35.00
    this is about 'Windows' Not everything that RUNS on Windows
  • 21:35.43
    If non-programming question is classified as "programming issue" then EVERYTHING RUNNINING ON WINDOWS IS PROGRAMMING ISSUE and you have nothing to support.
  • 21:36.01
    you clearly seem unhappy with the answers you are getting here, so even if this was ##programming_in_windows_ask_ANYTHING_especially_gcc it's not living up to your expectations so maybe move on?
  • 21:36.11
    you are coding an app, the app is crashing, somehow you seem to not get this difference
  • 21:36.27
    I strongly suggestyou find a gcc related channel
  • 21:36.59
    This makes one long for boot loader or ISO download questions
  • 21:37.00
    You seem incapable to distinguish between programming and Windows function. You cannot guide me then. Ok?
  • 21:37.19
    I am telling you you are off topic so time for you to move on
  • 21:38.15
    I use standard windows batch command processor. It has nothing to do with C programming. It must only terminate my program and compile it once again.
  • 21:39.03
    circ-user-vwR7x: oh hey, I missed this earlier. Let's use polite language in channel as well
  • 21:39.06
    WyReSP joined the channel.
  • 21:39.28
    < circ-user> Hi, I have noticed that when I use gcc p.c -o p.exe && p.exe in the loop, the compiler fails occasionally because p file
  • 21:39.31
  • 21:39.40
    You yourself indicatged you were using a program
  • 21:39.55
    Yes, because Windows batch executes next command whereas preceeding is unfinished
  • 21:40.10
    File is locked by existing p process
  • 21:40.15
    not what you asked and then you got argumentative.
  • 21:40.37
    as to 'reporting this bug', you would call Microsoft since we are not affiliated with Microsoft
  • 21:41.08
    james0 joined the channel.
  • 21:41.26
    when I run gcc && p && gcc && p I expect that preceding command has completed and the files it locked are released. This has nothing to do with C programming.
  • 21:41.46
    kzard joined the channel.
  • 21:41.50
    msdn docs were suggested eariler
  • 21:41.51
    Soda has quit: Remote host closed the connection.
  • 21:41.58
    lots of information on the platform there
  • 21:42.05
    Which Microsoft docs?
  • 21:42.19
    if you lock the files, you need to release them properly. It seems whatever you are doing isn't, so you will need to seek those answes to correct the issue with your programs
  • 21:42.32
    Did you occupy the channel to say that there is MSDN and google? What should I look for?
  • 21:43.01
    you need to find a programming channel. You have been refered to some. try them
  • 21:43.05
    handles (as was also suggested earlier)
  • 21:43.13
    I did not lock anything. You may be incompetent to know that Windows locks the image file when starts the process.
  • 21:43.16
    ##windows-coding, #win32 , ##WinJS or #winapi, or a channel specific to your programming language
  • 21:43.20
    I do not lock anything.
  • 21:43.35
    circ-user-vwR7x: calling names is not helping you and irritating me so let's stop
  • 21:43.45
    optrusty joined the channel.
  • 21:44.01
    Ignoring my point is very helping.
  • 21:44.23
    well, we can only guess at what is locked since we don't have your code
  • 21:44.25
    let's time. I suggets you move on and try the various resources previously suggested
  • 21:44.31
    last time
  • 21:45.49
    You do not guess. You invent unexisting file allocation to send me to another channel.
  • 21:46.06
    kzard has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds.
  • 21:47.15
    welcome to irc. multiplle people disagree with you at them moment. Since you are not getting answers to your satisfaction here, I suggest you avail yourself of the various other suggested resources
  • 21:47.22
    fleshtheworld joined the channel.
  • 21:47.30
    ThugW4ffle has quit: Ping timeout: 250 seconds.
  • 21:48.07
    i've seen cases where installers report they are 'done' before they are actually done. With MSIs this can screw up a workflow where several MSIs are being installed in a row. For MSIs I have a way to make sure the previous installer finished.
  • 21:48.46
    wouldn't hat be an issue withthe installer though S_SubZero?
  • 21:49.04
    I know our SCCM admin has some apps they have manual cleanups on
  • 21:49.16
    wisey joined the channel.
  • 21:50.23
    yeah I don't think it's a Windows problem there
  • 21:50.42
    Huntyz joined the channel.
  • 21:51.53
    naph-W has quit:
  • 21:52.23
    JotaK joined the channel.
  • 21:54.01
    schreiberstein joined the channel.
  • 21:54.13
    cajunctionAI joined the channel.
  • 21:55.12
    dgmurdockiii joined the channel.
  • 21:55.37
    aegisword has quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer.
  • 21:56.01
    aegisword joined the channel.
  • 21:56.26
    Simon1245 joined the channel.
  • 21:56.58
    optrusty has quit: Quit: Be back later ...
  • 21:57.28
    chalcedony has quit: Ping timeout: 256 seconds.
  • 21:57.34
    optrusty joined the channel.
  • 22:01.38
    blizzy joined the channel.
  • 22:01.54
    optrusty has quit: Ping timeout: 245 seconds.
  • 22:02.10
    is there anyway to fix this? everytime I plug in my charger, it says that it's the wrong adapter, even though it's not. that's not the problem, the problem is is that my computer then slows down.
  • 22:02.17
    this is a Dell.
  • 22:02.30
  • 22:02.37
    blizzy: sounds like either a ##hardware issue, or a Dell issue
  • 22:02.38
  • 22:02.43
    james0 has quit: Remote host closed the connection.
  • 22:02.44
    kruug, well, it's Dell.
  • 22:02.54
    as the popup basically says that it will slow down.
  • 22:03.04
    blizzy: contact Dell?
  • 22:03.34
    cubeast joined the channel.
  • 22:04.11
    SunDwarf joined the channel.
  • 22:05.27
    crymore has quit: Quit: Connection closed for inactivity.
  • 22:05.52
    ugh, this is annoying.
  • 22:06.16
    Eyes has quit: Ping timeout: 255 seconds.
  • 22:06.51
    WyReSP has quit: Ping timeout: 252 seconds.
  • 22:07.15
    maktm joined the channel.
  • 22:07.37
    Volatix has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds.
  • 22:07.45
    I wanted to know if it is possible to use powershell without it prompting me for a command after every line of code. for example writing in python and being able to edit any part of the script.
  • 22:07.53
    or is that not what PowerShell should do?
  • 22:08.30
    maktm: check out PowerShell ISE
  • 22:08.31
    not entirely sure what you're after, but use the ide?
  • 22:09.06
    Exactly what I was looking for. Don't mind my stupidity. Thank you.
  • 22:09.40
    ohxvoa joined the channel.
  • 22:10.02
    maktm: also try #powershell
  • 22:10.28
    maktm: and some free training resources int he powershell section here:
  • 22:10.41
    thank you :]
  • 22:10.47
    A-KO|tablet joined the channel.
  • 22:11.01
    V3DT has quit: Remote host closed the connection.
  • 22:11.30
    Tecnico1931 has quit: Quit: Tecnico1931.
  • 22:12.37
    Mia joined the channel.
  • 22:14.25
  • 22:14.43
  • 22:15.07
    circ-user-vwR7x: use start /wait
  • 22:15.09
    dumb dumb
  • 22:16.03
    A-KO|tablet: calling users dumb isn't going to help
  • 22:16.03
    cobiashimew joined the channel.
  • 22:16.24
    Why? Did you find that in MSDN? Didn't it tell you that batch must be executed in synchronous manner, one command after another? If it does not then how does start /wait can help?
  • 22:16.54
    circ-user-vwR7x: batch files are asynchronous. They execute commands. Using start /wait, which was added I think in XP or Vista, does exactly what you want it to do.
  • 22:17.06
    This has been the behavior in batch files for Windows for decades
  • 22:17.19
    That's why they added "start /wait"
  • 22:17.47
    nyuszika7h: I feel like it's appropriate given that the behavior he's complaining about has been Windows behavior for.....25 years?
  • 22:17.48
    do you mean that for for /l %%x in (1, 1, 100) do echo %%x will execute 100 echoes in parallel? Where did you find that?
  • 22:17.49
    30 years?
  • 22:17.49
    ThugW4ffle joined the channel.
  • 22:18.09
    circ-user-vwR7x: && start /wait p.exe
  • 22:18.19
    that's not a valid excuse for calling people dumb
  • 22:18.37
    Why && start /wait p is better than && p?
  • 22:18.40
    You might also have to do some additional funky stuff. Batch files are incredibly limited, and it's not a good shell environment. Which is why Microsoft moved everything to Powershell.
  • 22:18.53
    Because start /wait will put the script on hold until the p process terminates
  • 22:18.59
    which is what you're asking for
  • 22:19.00
    ByT3b0N3 has quit: Ping timeout: 256 seconds.
  • 22:19.10
    circ-user-vwR7x: it doesn't wait for p.exe to quit, it just moves on. just use "start /wait p.exe" as A-KO|tablet said - stop complaining when you get told EXACTLY what you need to do.
  • 22:19.37
    Anti-Pizza has quit: Quit: Leaving.
  • 22:20.21
    Then why echo in the loop are not executed in parallel?
  • 22:20.37
    circ-user-vwR7x: because it's a loop
  • 22:21.07
    your echo is so trivial that it's done by the time the next iteration starts
  • 22:21.14
  • 22:21.14
    WyReSP joined the channel.
  • 22:21.21
    Any why does substituting echo with p break the loop?
  • 22:21.28
    lcqf has quit: Remote host closed the connection.
  • 22:21.32
    circ-user-vwR7x: it doesn't break the loop
  • 22:21.43
    Your loop is spawning XXXXX processes of p.exe
  • 22:21.48
    100 processes of p.exe, which is failing
  • 22:22.11
    In fact, it's starting 100 processes of gcc.exe also
  • 22:22.14
    the loop fires off teh process, then goes to teh next iteration, fires off another process, then goes to teh next iteration, fires off another process...
  • 22:22.16
  • 22:22.18
  • 22:22.20
  • 22:22.22
  • 22:22.24
  • 22:22.26
  • 22:22.37
    The loop doesn't care what p.exe is doing, nor what gcc.exe is doing
  • 22:22.42
    And it won't wait for them
  • 22:22.48
    it doesn't care about error conditions, etc.
  • 22:22.50
    I have replaced gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm && p.exe with gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm && start /wait p.exe and still getting the same error
  • 22:22.59
    Use start /wait gcc
  • 22:23.09
    ariscop__ has quit: Ping timeout: 252 seconds.
  • 22:23.28
    yeah, `start /wait` needs to be at the beginning of the line
  • 22:23.47
    why are you recompiling and running the same thing 100 times anyways?
  • 22:23.54
    malware? :D
  • 22:24.41
    start /wait gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm && p.exe results in 'p.exe' is not recognized as an internal or external command for every 3rd iteration and Access is denied for every 3rd iteration
  • 22:25.06
    I am recompiling it million of times
  • 22:25.11
    use 'start /wait' for both of them
  • 22:25.12
    start /wait gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm
  • 22:25.13
    dan2k3k4 joined the channel.
  • 22:25.15
    start /wait p.exe
  • 22:25.22
    nobody told you to remove 'start /wait' from the other one
  • 22:25.39
    \mSg joined the channel.
  • 22:25.49
    circ-user-vwR7x: WHY are you rcompiling the same thing and then running it, though?
  • 22:26.05
    kruug: that is a demo of the bug
  • 22:26.08
    qu4nt1n joined the channel.
  • 22:26.13
    it's not a bug, though
  • 22:26.16
    Randall_ joined the channel.
  • 22:26.23
    well, it is, but it's a fixed bug
  • 22:26.26
    start /wait gcc prog.c -o p.exe -lm && start /wait p.exe results in 'p.exe' is not recognized as an internal or external command for every 3rd iteration and Access is denied for every 3rd iteration
  • 22:27.11
    Is this an appropriate channel for asking questions about windows development
  • 22:27.22
    Mark|Wrk is now known as Mark|Wrk|Away.
  • 22:27.32
    Now, you demonstrated your level of competence below the bottom.
  • 22:28.08
    _tv_ has quit: Read error: Connection reset by peer.
  • 22:28.10
    I do not know which 30 years of dev you are talking about but sleep 1 in the loop executes serially, not asynchronously also.
  • 22:28.28
    Randall_, if its programming related, try one of the language channels, or ##windows-coding #winapi
  • 22:28.34
    no, that pauses the thread, circ-user-vwR7x
  • 22:28.43
    Cool Thank yout TheBard
  • 22:29.18
    Can you imagine: p.exe does pause the thread also!
  • 22:29.50
    as well as gcc and all other commands in the batch
  • 22:29.57
    Relapse has quit: Quit: Trying to focus..
  • 22:30.07
    no it doesn't
  • 22:30.15
    since those are external tools outside of your script
  • 22:31.33
    Who are you trying to cheat?
  • 22:32.09
    I have checked, increasing the delay in the p.exe file so that it does not terminate immediately. And I am having p.exe appearing one after another, not all together.
  • 22:32.14
    circ-user-vwR7x: I am not going to warn you again about this.
  • 22:32.39
    circ-user-vwR7x: it's your issue, not Microsofts and not ours
  • 22:32.54
    Slacko_Live_CD has quit: Ping timeout: 264 seconds.
  • 22:33.29
    Start.exe was introduced exactly to execute external programs asynchronously. The default mode is blocking.
  • 22:33.44
    Haricophile joined the channel.
  • 22:34.32
    kruug: I understand. This channel exists exclusively to misinform the people and explain them that thir (windows) problems are their own, not your or Windows problems.
  • 22:34.38
    ChanServ gave channel operator status to sepeck.
  • 22:34.39
    sepeck gave +q to *!*
  • 22:34.39
    sepeck took channel operator status from sepeck.
  • 22:35.06
    Baronawesome has quit: Quit: ZNC -