Hello,

More of my philosophy about about the paper and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

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

I have just forgotten to post about who has written the following
paper about cooperative and preemptive tasking:
https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

Here is the Professor Phil Koopman of Carnegie Mellon University from Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering who has written
this paper:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/personal.html

And note that i am calling, in my thoughts below, cooperative and preemptive tasking: "preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing"

More of my philosophy about Intel 8051 controller and about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just quickly read the following interesting paper and it says
that judicious use of cooperative tasking techniques can also often meet an embedded system's multitasking requirements, while giving better
performance and a simpler software environment than a preemptive multitasker, so read it carefully here:

https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~koopman/pubs/koopman90_HeavyweightTasking.pdf

And notice that it also says in the above paper that so that to meet
the requirements with cooperative multitasking you have to move the time-critical code to interrupt-service routines. And let us look
for example at the Intel 8051 controller here:

https://www.electronicwings.com/8051/introduction-to-8051-controller

So as you notice that it has many hardware interrupts that you can
use so that to make the cooperative tasking efficient, and i think it also comes with two clock timers interrupts that you can use to implement preemptive multitasking if you want, and you have also to know about interrupt latency when programming embedded systems with hardware controllers, and you have to know that the hardware interrupts have to get serviced fast enough and often enough, so you shouldn't disable
interrupts for too long a period of time, and just to give you an idea
, look for example at the nonbuffered communication UART (Universal
Asynchronous Receiver Transmitter) operating at 38,400 bits per second will interrupt every 208 microseconds. This is 1/38,400*8 because they
will interrupt for every byte (8 bits), and a processor or controller running at 25MHz executes most of its instructions in
2 or 3 system-clock periods. That would be an average of 120 nanoseconds
(1/25,000,000*3). In theory, this means you could execute as
many as 1,730 instructions in the interrupt interval. So that was only
in theory, now you have to do the reality check. You must take into
consideration that there are more interrupts than just that communication channel. The timer interrupt will be firing off every so often. And the communication interrupt itself will have interrupts
disabled for good period of time, and not only that, but there is also the tasks switch that can be expensive, so you have to think about
it efficiently.
So i invite you to read my below thoughts about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more so that to understand much more efficiently:
More of my philosophy about preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing and more..

I have just took a smart look at Modula-2 language(Modula-2 is a structured, procedural programming language developed between 1977 and 1985 by Niklaus Wirth at ETH Zurich, and he has also developed Pascal
language, read about Niklaus Wirth here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Wirth), and i think Modula-2 language was among the first languages that has provided preemptive and non-preemptive timesharing with coroutines, but the preemptive timesharing in Modula-2 uses Interrupt handling using IOTRANSFER, but it is best reserved for programs that will run without operating system support. Installing an interrupt handler on a multiuser system is not feasi­ble because doing so would affect other users. (For this reason, IOTRANSFER is not a mandatory feature of Modula-2.) Even on single-user systems, IOTRANSFER can be difficult to use because installing an interrupt handler causes the old interrupt handler (which most likely belongs to the operating system) to be lost. So this is why i think that the best way in modern operating systems is to use non-preemptive timesharing with coroutines, so this is why i am providing you with my sophisticated implementation of stackful coroutines, read about it in my thoughts below:

More of my philosophy about timesharing that is a Solution to Computer Bottlenecks..

I invite you to look at the following very interesting video about timesharing that is a Solution to Computer Bottlenecks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q07PhW5sCEk

I think i am smart, and you have to understand one important thing
and it is: What is the difference between a software architect and
a software engineer?, i think there is an important difference and it
is also like abstracted in the following question:

"How it is made?"

So i think that software engineering works at a higher level than
a software architect, this is why you will notice that i am
quickly implementing a sophisticated stackful coroutines
Library and i am quickly implementing setjmp() and longjmp() with
x64 assembler or code machine, read my below thoughts about them, but you have to know that my sophisticated stackful coroutines Library
does a kind of timesharing as in the above video, but i think that there is two kinds of timesharing: the preemptive one, and the non-preemptive one, but the difference is that the preemptive one does interrupt with a timer the coroutines from an external scheduler in
a form of function, but notice below that i am implementing the non-preemptive timesharing in my sophisticated coroutines Library, but you have to be smart and notice that my way of doing is like the software architect way, since i am implementing it from the lowest level with x64 assembler routines that are part of the non-preemptive scheduler, but not only that, but you have also to look at how i am also implementing a
sophisticated and much more rich interface in my stackful coroutines Library, so it is like both software achitecting and software engineering, so here is all my below thoughts that shows how i am implementing it quickly, so read it carefully since you have also to know what's the problem with the stack frames when architecturing and using the setjmp() and longjmp() so that to implement coroutines:

More of my philosophy and precision about the link of the article and more...

And notice that the link below of the article that shows the problem
of implementing coroutines with just setjmp() and longjmp()
is from the last semester of the second year of the course
called "CS4411 Operating Systems" from Michigan Technological University, but i think i am smart and those courses are easy
for me, so i invite you to read about this course that requires
both the course of "CS3331 Concurrent Computing" and "CS3421 Computer Organization", and here it is:

http://www.csl.mtu.edu/cs4411.ck/www/Home.html

More of my philosophy about coroutines and about setjmp() and longjmp()..

I think i am smart, and i will say that with setjmp() and longjmp()
you can implement a generator or the like, but you can not implement coroutines with just setjmp() and longjmp(), and so that to understand it, i invite you to read the following article that shows how when you yield from a first function with a longjmp() to the main body of a program and when you call another functions with longjmp(), it can make the stack frames not work correctly, and when you understand it you will not use setjmp() and longjmp() alone so that to implement coroutines, so read the following article so that to understand the problem with
the stack frames, and i am understanding it easily:

https://www.csl.mtu.edu/cs4411.ck/www/NOTES/non-local-goto/coroutine.html

So this is why i have also implemented my sophisticated stackful coroutines library so that to solve this problem, and here is my sophisticated coroutines library and read about it and download it from here:

https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/object-oriented-stackful-coroutines-library-for-delphi-and-freepascal

More of my philosophy about setjmp() and longjmp() and generators and coroutines..

I have just quickly implemented setjmp() and longjmp() in x64 assembler,
and after that i have just implemented quickly a good example of a generator with my setjmp() and longjmp(), look at it below, and in computer science, a generator is a routine that can be used to control the iteration behaviour of a loop. All generators are also iterators. A generator is very similar to a function that returns an array, in that a generator has parameters, can be called, and generates a sequence of values. However, instead of building an array containing all the values and returning them all at once, a generator yields the values one at a time, which requires less memory and allows the caller to get started processing the first few values immediately.. In short, a generator looks like a function but behaves like an iterator. So here is my implementations in freepascal and delphi and they are working perfectly:

Here is my first unit that implements longjmp() and setjmp() and notice
how i am saving the non-volatile registers and how i am coding it in
x64 assembler:

=====

{ Volatile registers: The calling program assumes registers
RAX, RCX, RDX, and R8 through R11 are volatile.
The contents of registers RBX, RSI, RDI, RBP, RSP, and
R12 through R15 are considered non-volatile. Functions return
values in RAX. }

Amine can Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, Terence Tao possibly ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC? I say possibly because they cannot even correct their mistake that a slant cut in single cone is not an ellipse but is a oval. Since they cannot even see that mistake in conics, there is no hope or prayer that they can do a geometry proof of FTC.

Amine can Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross, ever do a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? We know you Amine cannot, for you spend all your time spamming Usenet. In fact we do not know if Amine can do any math that is college level math.

On Friday, November 26, 2021 at 5:15:54 PM UTC-6, Amine Moulay Ramdane wrote:
> "A Harvard immunologist said

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Amine can Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen please ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole.

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin

Harvard Math dept

Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross,

Joseph Harris (FP)

Heisuke Hironaka (EM)

Michael Hopkins (FP)

Arthur Jaffe (FP)

David Kazhdan (EM)

Mark Kisin (FP)

Peter Kronheimer (FP)

Jacob Lurie (FP)

Eric Maskin (FP)

Barry Mazur (FP)

Curtis McMullen (FP)

David Mumford (EM)

Martin Nowak (FP)

Gerald Sacks (EM)

Wilfried Schmid (FP)

Yum-Tong Siu (FP)

Shlomo Sternberg (EM)

John Tate (EM)

Cliff Taubes (FP)

Hugh Woodin (FP)

Horng-Tzer Yau (FP)

Shing-Tung Yau (FP)

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

#1-4, 105th published book

Atom Geometry is Torus Geometry // Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Since all atoms are doing the Faraday Law inside them, of their thrusting muon into a proton coil in the shape of a geometry torus, then the torus is the geometry of each and every atom. But then we must explain the neutrons since the muon and proton are doing Faraday's Law, then the neutron needs to be explained in terms of this proton torus with muon inside, all three shaped as rings. The muon is a single ring and each proton is 8 rings. The neutron is shaped like a plate and is solid not hollow. The explanation of a neutron is that of a capacitor storing what the proton-muon rings produce in electricity. Where would the neutron parallel plates be located? I argue in this text that the neutron plates when fully grown from 1 eV until 945MeV are like two parallel plate capacitors where each neutron is part of one plate, like two pieces of bread with the proton-muon torus being a hamburger patty.

Cover Picture: I assembled two atoms in this picture where the proton torus with a band of muons inside traveling around and around the proton torus producing electricity. And the pie-plates represent neutrons as parallel-plate capacitors.
Length: 39 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : March 24, 2020
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• ASIN : B086BGSNXN
• Print Length : 39 pages
• File Size : 935 KB
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,656,820 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#6413 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
#315 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#4953 in Physics (Kindle Store)



#1-5, 112th published book

New Perspective on Psi^2 in the Schrodinger Equation in a Atom Totality Universe// Atom Totality series, book 5
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I first heard of the Schrodinger equation in college chemistry class. We never actually did any problem solving with the equation, and we were only told about it. Then taking physics my next year in college and after I bought the Feynman Lectures on Physics, just for fun for side reading, three volume set did I learn what this Schrodinger equation and the Psi^2 wavefunction was about. I am not going to teach the mathematics of the Schrodinger equation and the math calculations of the Psi or Psi^2 in this book, but leave that up to the reader or student to do that from Feynman's Lectures on Physics. The purpose of this book is to give a new and different interpretation of what Psi^2 is, what Psi^2 means. Correct interpretation of physics experiments and observations turns out to be one of the most difficult tasks in all of physics.