Hello,

Here is my new proverb and more of my philosophy..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

First i have to prove that i am an inventor of many scalable algorithms and algorithms, so read my following thoughts about my inventions so that to understand that it is the truth:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/V9Go8fbF10k

And here is my new proverb:

"You have to know about exponential thinking and about exponential growth and about exponential progress, so when you want to become
really rich and powerful, you have first to be "creative" and "inventive" so that to bring a really interesting added value to your product or service, also you have to be smart and think smartly at how to take "advantage" of exponential growth and you have to sell your product or service to a "large" population of humans."
So when you read my above proverb you will then have to for example know from where comes creativity, so read my following thoughts so that to understand:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/O-p9IH1aL14

And i invite you to read my following other proverbs in my following thoughts:

Yet more philosophy about the smart patterns and about abstraction..

So i will give you a smart question that is like a Mensa IQ test, here it is:

What is the important relation between the exponential progress of
our humanity and abstraction and the smart patterns and functional programming ?

So you are noticing that you have to be smart so that to answer correctly this question, and answering this question is really important, also i can logically infer from the answer of the above question that i can invent a new proverb from it, so here is my new proverb in french and english about it:

"The intelligent favors healthy eating over tasty eating, and by analogy we can also say that the intelligent also favors the effective speaker over the sweet talker"

"L'intelligent privilégie le manger santé au manger qui a du goût, et par analogie on peut aussi dire que l'intelligent aussi privilégie le parleur efficace au beau parleur."

Here is my other just new proverb that will help you to understand
what i want you to understand, and it is like a Mensa IQ test:

"Is understanding the patterns of functional programming and all understanding of functional programming? so then the intelligent will also pedagogically follow the same way of effectively learning functional programming from the patterns of functional programming, so it is also an effective abstraction and it is an effective top-down methodology, and it permits you to be really efficient, and i am doing it smartly, since i am finding with my smartness more of those patterns or smart patterns that permit this effectiveness "

I am rapidly inventing and thinking and writing my following proverbs:

Here is my just new proverb:

"Even silence makes us advance, since a human life full of silence is not the right diversity as a balance that makes the good reliance"

Here is my other just new proverb in english and french:

"Learn to lift your head with dignity because even the sea has threatening waves."

"Apprends à élever la tête avec dignité car même la mer a des vagues qui menacent."

And here is my other new proverbs read them carefully:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/w7wgcbkEEIQ

And i invite you to read all my following thoughts of my philosophy:

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo

Also you can read more about my thoughts of my philosophy about human smartness in the following web link:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/Wzf6AOl41xs

More philosophy about correlation and the Hill’s Criteria

I just said yesterday the following:

"I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a general concept that permits to model the reality."

So i invite you to read the following interesting web page about the
Hill’s Criteria, look for example at what it is saying about the strength and the consistency so that to notice it:

Causation in Statistics: Hill’s Criteria

https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/causation/

More philosophy about mathematics..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that mathematics theory is based on logic in mathematics,
so it follows logical consistency, but notice that it follows
logical consistency by following human common sense and logic by using operators and there allowed rules or instructions of addiction and substraction and multiplication and less than and greater than etc. so then notice that since they follow this logical path so then the important rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is still valid in mathematics theory, and this rule is logically inferred from the truth table of the logical implication and that permits also to logically infer and validate the logical proofs such as:

(p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p))

or

(not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p

Note that p and q are logical variables.

And note that -> means logical implication:

More philosophy about correlation and logical implication..

I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a general concept that permits to model the reality.

More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics..

So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following
logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically,
since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured
by common sense and logic of reality:

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below):

"I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)"

So i will be more rigorous so that you understand:

So notice the following truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

Note that p and q are logical variables.

So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can happen in the reality, i give you an example:

If we take the following two propositions:

"I take my umbrella"

"The sky is raining"

So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions:

Note that -> means logical implication:

[1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining

[2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

[4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

So now by using our human common sense and human logic
we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical
in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense
and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not
to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table
it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of:
(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits
us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize,
so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general
concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like
the general concept, read my below thoughts about it:

On Sat Jun 5 14:56:57 2021 Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Here is my new proverb and more of my philosophy..
>
> I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

*
I do not know the definition of "White Arab." You might want to explain.

My own rating of your mathematical capability is somewhere between John Gabriel (who posts here as "Eram Semper Recta") and the "King of Science" known as Archimedes Plutonium. Do you agree? I think you could learn something from them in the mathematics field.

Let me give you the fundamental Quiz in basic intelligence:

Q: You are standing outside and it begins to rain.
What do you do?

Please answer in your simplest terms.

Here is another quiz for mathematicians:

Let y = x^x.
what happens to y as x approaches zero?

First, in the real field.
Then, iin the complex field.

Cheers! earle
*