CreateUUID

Report · Feb 23, 2012

This question was posted in response to the following article: http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ColdFusion/9.0/CFMLRef/WSc3ff6d0ea77859461172e0811cbec22c24-70de.html

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Dave Watts wrote:
Your "new idea" seems to be that you can define words however you like, as Humpty-Dumpty would.

When the insults start flying in, then it often means the ideas are used up. Incidentally, I expected better from a Community Pro.

Why only settle on "new idea"? I gave you quite some leeway with "development or new idea". Also, you could have gone for "is" in place of "seems to be". So why the timidity? Let me guess. Because you have difficulty substantiating your arguments?

Unlike you, I care about the quality of my argumentation. In my opinion, yours has been below par, in this thread in any case. As far as this line of argument goes, I will definitely end here.

Report · Feb 27, 2012

When the insults start flying in, then it often means the ideas are used up. Incidentally, I expected better from a Community Pro.

You seem to be defining words however you like, and that's what I said. That is not intended to be an insult, merely an observation. I think that, in general, you are a valuable contributor here. But that doesn't mean that words just mean what you say they do.

Why only settle on "new idea"? I gave you quite some leeway with "development or new idea". Also, you could have gone for "is" in place of "seems to be". So why the timidity? Let me guess. Because you have difficulty substantiating your arguments?

I went with "seems to be" because I like to extend people the benefit of the doubt. I settled on "new idea" because I didn't see any "development" in any case. I think I substantiated my argument as clearly as possible. To return to that, would you accept the alternative definitions I propsed earlier?

"uniqueness means that, if you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one."

"randomness means that, if you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible."

If you do accept them, then you clearly think that the two words are synonymous, and that is that. I'd disagree, but we'd probably get no farther. If you don't accept them, however, then you clearly don't think the two words are synonymous. You never did respond to this very specific point. I'm not going to speculate on why you didn't, but I think this is a substantial argument and worthy of an honest, clear response.

Unlike you, I care about the quality of my argumentation. In my opinion, yours has been below par, in this thread in any case.

Now that seems to be more than you can accurately speculate on - you have no idea what is in my mind, do you? No? I didn't think so. In fact, I care very much about how words are used. Words have meanings. I get quite riled up when people just use them any old way, like you, in my opinion, did earlier in the thread. I will discount your opinion about the quality of my argumentation as a result, until you can respond to the very specific question I posed earlier.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Dave Watts, Eidolon LLC

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Dave Watts wrote:
When the insults start flying in, then it often means the ideas are used up. Incidentally, I expected better from a Community Pro.
You seem to be defining words however you like, and that's what I said. That is not intended to be an insult, merely an observation. I think that, in general, you are a valuable contributor here. But that doesn't mean that words just mean what you say they do.
Why only settle on "new idea"? I gave you quite some leeway with "development or new idea". Also, you could have gone for "is" in place of "seems to be". So why the timidity? Let me guess. Because you have difficulty substantiating your arguments?
I went with "seems to be" because I like to extend people the benefit of the doubt. I settled on "new idea" because I didn't see any "development" in any case. I think I substantiated my argument as clearly as possible. To return to that, would you accept the alternative definitions I propsed earlier?
"uniqueness means that, if you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one."
"randomness means that, if you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible."
If you do accept them, then you clearly think that the two words are synonymous, and that is that. I'd disagree, but we'd probably get no farther. If you don't accept them, however, then you clearly don't think the two words are synonymous. You never did respond to this very specific point. I'm not going to speculate on why you didn't, but I think this is a substantial argument and worthy of an honest, clear response.
Unlike you, I care about the quality of my argumentation. In my opinion, yours has been below par, in this thread in any case.
Now that seems to be more than you can accurately speculate on - you have no idea what is in my mind, do you? No? I didn't think so. In fact, I care very much about how words are used. Words have meanings. I get quite riled up when people just use them any old way, like you, in my opinion, did earlier in the thread. I will discount your opinion about the quality of my argumentation as a result, until you can respond to the very specific question I posed earlier.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Seen, but not read.

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Seen, but not read.

This is hilarious. You're basically stooping to the level of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?". If Dave was a girl, you'd've pulled his hair and run off by now.

Why don't you just concede "yeah, good point Dave"?

Surely that's easier that the lengths you have gone to to demonstrate a) how foolish you are; b) how you don't get that just conceding being wrong is far less "bad" (if it even is "bad") than making a complete jack-ass out of yourself. Why would you rather look like a complete ass than just admit you were wrong?

But do continue... this is fun...

--

Adam

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
Seen, but not read.
This is hilarious. You're basically stooping to the level of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?". If Dave was a girl, you'd've pulled his hair and run off by now.
Why don't you just concede "yeah, good point Dave"?
Surely that's easier that the lengths you have gone to to demonstrate a) how foolish you are; b) how you don't get that just conceding being wrong is far less "bad" (if it even is "bad") than making a complete jack-*** out of yourself. Why would you rather look like a complete *** than just admit you were wrong?
But do continue... this is fun..

I saw, and read, this one. Easy just to keep saying I'm wrong, isn't it? Please do rally together and prove me wrong.

Added edit: I am a mathematician by training, so I wont resist the temptation of inviting you both to define the 'randomness' and 'uniqueness' you claim to know so much about. Your contribution on the subject so far is nothing to write home about.

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Seen, but not read.
This is hilarious. You're basically stooping to the level of "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?". If Dave was a girl, you'd've pulled his hair and run off by now.
Why don't you just concede "yeah, good point Dave"?
Surely that's easier that the lengths you have gone to to demonstrate a) how foolish you are; b) how you don't get that just conceding being wrong is far less "bad" (if it even is "bad") than making a complete jack-*** out of yourself. Why would you rather look like a complete *** than just admit you were wrong?
But do continue... this is fun..
I saw, and read, this one. Easy just to keep saying I'm wrong. Please do rally together and prove me wrong.

But this has already been done, both by Jason and by Dave in their initial posts in response to your assertion. Plain and simple "randomness" and "uniqueness" are not - in any way - equivalent notions. Not in the context of CFTOKENs, and not in any other context either. You can spout as much meaningless babble as you like, but that's all anything you have said has been: meaningless babble. It's not an argument. It's not a position. You have not put forward a case of any description. There is not even anything approaching logic to it. You've said nothing that can be "proved" one way or the other, because on the whole, nothing you have said has made any sense. It's just incoherent nonsense. It's so much to that extent that if I didn't know better (due to the last time I indicated that was my suspicion, and you corrected me), I'd again be asking whether English is your first language.

The only thing you have done (and are continuing to do ~) is made yourself look a bit silly.

--

Adam

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
Plain and simple "randomness" and "uniqueness" are not - in any way - equivalent notions. Not in the context of CFTOKENs, and not in any other context either.

I have extracted what I consider to be the essence of the matter. I hope everyone will agree that such a statement is meaningless unless the author first tells us what he means by "randomness" and "uniqueness". You don't. Neither did Dave before you.

Instead you hide behind a smokescreen of insults and trivial, half-baked ideas. Let's get back to basics. Here again is my attempt at establishing the context in which I said uniqueness is equivalent to randomness:

Uniqueness: If you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible.

Randomness: If you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one.

I may or may not be right, but that is another matter. I have at least put up. Whereas, you and Dave criticize and criticize, without ever once telling the forum what you understand by randomness or uniqueness.

So let's skip the chase. Tell us what you mean by "randomness" and "uniqueness". In any context you choose to name. If what I've seen so far is anything to go by, we'll be waiting here till we begin to grow feathers.

Report · Feb 28, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
Plain and simple "randomness" and "uniqueness" are not - in any way - equivalent notions. Not in the context of CFTOKENs, and not in any other context either.
I have extracted what I consider to be the essence of the matter.
[...]
Uniqueness: If you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible.
Randomness: If you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one.

Which - by your own description (which is adequate) - demonstrates they are not related concepts, and attempt to achieve different ends.

Let's clarify this outwith the context of CF.

Randomness. A series of values is random if the next value cannot be inferred from the previous values (in part or as a whole), and no previous values have any influence over subsequent values. A measure of the randomness of an algorithm is how well it fulfils that criteria.

Uniqueness. A value within a series is unique if it occurs only once. A measure how well an algorithm provides unique results is in what the probability of getting duplicate results is.

To demonstrate how these concepts are very different let's look at some test results from within a small system

Say the system has a range of 1000 possible values, and we take ten samples. And the algorithms are "perfect".

The random sample could be:

500, 123, 666, 42, 1, 789, 501, 42, 317, 256.

Note that 42 has - completely randomly - occurred twice. In fact just as random as the result above, would be this result:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

That is no less likely to be the result than the seemingly more random one.

If we extend this out to be 1000 samples, there is an equal chance of any given element having the same value as one other element as there is for it to be any other specific number.

Duplicates are part and parcel, and completely "expected" in random number series.

On the other hand, a unique algorithm "guarantees" (for all intents and purposes) that the results are... well... unique.

In the 1000-item example, a completely legit uniqueness algorithm might be to simply increment a counter:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

(and this algorithm still works perfectly right out to the full 1000 item sample size).

There is no randomness there (randomness is not part of the remit of a uniqueness algorithm), and it is entirely predictable (lack of predictability is not part of the remit of a uniqueness algorthim). Also a preceding result directly inflences the next result (the next being an increment of the previous).

So this in itself demonstrates that randomness and uniqueness are very different qualities, and differ significantly when it comes to the qualities that each are measured by (predictability, and how much one value influences another).

When it comes to real-world examples, UUIDs can be generated in a completely predictable fashion. The composition of a UUID could be:

* MAC address of a NIC in the box generating the UUID

* the time down to some arbitrary accuracy (the one I looked at was down to 100ns)

* a correction value (should the time be adjusted backwards between one UUID and the next)

* a counter (to allow for UUIDs to be generated faster than the accuracy of the clock)

If one presupposes that a MAC address is adequate to be a unique spatial identifier, and the correction values and counter are large enough to not overflow, then this will generate unique values, and not be at all random.

If one was not satisfied with the MAC solution, and technology was slightly better than we currently have, a "perfect" uniqueness algorithm could be implemented using the geolocation of the machine running the algorithm (accurate to a degree smaller than the size of the machine, so it guarantees no machines can have a same value), and a time clock more accurate than the time it takes to generate a result (so every result from a given machine occurs at a different time). The unique value then is simply machine location + current time.

Really the only similarity between the two concepts is that both use an algorithm, and both provide results. Beyond that, they are mostly disconnected concepts.

Is that enough? Although your own example was, as I said, good enough to contradict what you're saying.

--

Adam

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
your own description (which is adequate)

Thanks. Sincerely. It wouldn't have been easy for you. It's quite a U-turn for the man who told me just a moment ago:

on the whole, nothing you have said has made any sense. It's just incoherent nonsense.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

I have decided to discuss your demonstrations first. The discussion on your definition of 'randomness' and 'uniqueness' follows later.

Adam Cameron. wrote:
To demonstrate how these concepts are very different let's look at some test results from within a small system
Say the system has a range of 1000 possible values, and we take ten samples. And the algorithms are "perfect".
The random sample could be:
500, 123, 666, 42, 1, 789, 501, 42, 317, 256.
Note that 42 has - completely randomly - occurred twice. In fact just as random as the result above, would be this result:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
That is no less likely to be the result than the seemingly more random one.
If we extend this out to be 1000 samples, there is an equal chance of any given element having the same value as one other element as there is for it to be any other specific number.
Duplicates are part and parcel, and completely "expected" in random number series.

I accept that this is a demonstration of randomness. However, I fail to see the connection with the context of CFToken. To substantiate this, I will now show that your statement, 'Duplicates are part and parcel, and completely "expected" in random number series', falls short of the mark.

Your statement applies only to samples drawn from a small population! The CFtoken context gives us an indication of the kind of poputation size we ought to be thinking about: upwards of 16^16, that is, upwards of 10 to the power 19. If the samples are drawn from a population consisting of a very large number of distinct entities, the rules of the game change.

While I agree with you that any 2 such samples have the same probability of occurring, I think your statement, 'Duplicates are part and parcel, and completely "expected"', is wrong in this case. In fact, it is a trivial exercise to actually prove that duplicates become less and less expected as the population size grows.

On the other hand, a unique algorithm "guarantees" (for all intents and purposes) that the results are... well... unique.
In the 1000-item example, a completely legit uniqueness algorithm might be to simply increment a counter:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.
(and this algorithm still works perfectly right out to the full 1000 item sample size).
There is no randomness there (randomness is not part of the remit of a uniqueness algorithm), and it is entirely predictable (lack of predictability is not part of the remit of a uniqueness algorthim). Also a preceding result directly inflences the next result (the next being an increment of the previous).
So this in itself demonstrates that randomness and uniqueness are very different qualities, and differ significantly when it comes to the qualities that each are measured by (predictability, and how much one value influences another).
When it comes to real-world examples, UUIDs can be generated in a completely predictable fashion. The composition of a UUID could be:
* MAC address of a NIC in the box generating the UUID
* the time down to some arbitrary accuracy (the one I looked at was down to 100ns)
* a correction value (should the time be adjusted backwards between one UUID and the next)
* a counter (to allow for UUIDs to be generated faster than the accuracy of the clock)
If one presupposes that a MAC address is adequate to be a unique spatial identifier, and the correction values and counter are large enough to not overflow, then this will generate unique values, and not be at all random.
If one was not satisfied with the MAC solution, and technology was slightly better than we currently have, a "perfect" uniqueness algorithm could be implemented using the geolocation of the machine running the algorithm (accurate to a degree smaller than the size of the machine, so it guarantees no machines can have a same value), and a time clock more accurate than the time it takes to generate a result (so every result from a given machine occurs at a different time). The unique value then is simply machine location + current time.
Really the only similarity between the two concepts is that both use an algorithm, and both provide results. Beyond that, they are mostly disconnected concepts.

All well argued and all plausible, I must admit. However, you talk about a unique algorithm, whereas uniqueness applies to the entities or samples generated, and not to the method of generation. That was the foundation of your argument on uniqueness. A feeble foundation never leads to a solid building.

The way I read it, this is one of those tales that is full of sound and fury, but that signifies little. As I have already reminded you, the Adobe livedocs gives us a starter, namely, uniqueness on the basis of at least 16^16 entities.

Is that enough?

No. I'll return to show you an argument that establishes equivalence between randomness and uniquenss in the CFToken context. I have to run -- duty calls.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
Let's clarify this outwith the context of CF.
Randomness. A series of values is random if the next value cannot be inferred from the previous values (in part or as a whole), and no previous values have any influence over subsequent values. A measure of the randomness of an algorithm is how well it fulfils that criteria.
Uniqueness. A value within a series is unique if it occurs only once. A measure how well an algorithm provides unique results is in what the probability of getting duplicate results is.
To demonstrate how these concepts are very different let's look at some test results from within a small system

There are quite a number of loose ends here. The context and definitions just don't tie up.

You start by saying the context is CF, by which I presume you mean CFToken. Again, remember that the population size is >= 16^16. Yet the last sentence in this excerpt is looking at some test results from a "small" system.

There is an obvious difference between your definitions and mine. You talk about the randomness and uniqueness of algorithms. Whereas I talk about the randomness and uniqueness of samples or entities like CFToken. No right or wrong there. Whichever definition one uses, what matters is whether one consistently goes from definition to conclusion.

Well, you don't. You say, for example, that "A value within a series is unique if it occurs only once". This is blatantly false. Correct is: a value within a series is unique if the probability of it occurring more than once is close to zero.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Instead you hide behind a smokescreen of insults and trivial, half-baked ideas. Let's get back to basics. Here again is my attempt at establishing the context in which I said uniqueness is equivalent to randomness:
Uniqueness: If you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible.
Randomness: If you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one.
I may or may not be right, but that is another matter. I have at least put up. Whereas, you and Dave criticize and criticize, without ever once telling the forum what you understand by randomness or uniqueness.
So let's skip the chase. Tell us what you mean by "randomness" and "uniqueness". In any context you choose to name. If what I've seen so far is anything to go by, we'll be waiting here till we begin to grow feathers.

This will be my last post in this thread, but I think you deserve as good an explanation as I can provide.

Earlier in the thread, you stated that the words "uniqueness" and "randomness" meant the same thing, in a specific context. Here, you are providing separate definitions for each, and these definitions do not mean the same thing. That was the gist of my earlier point. That's all. I don't even need to define the words to dispute what I see as the contradiction between your own statements. Perhaps you can provide alternative definitions for the two words where they do, in fact, mean the same thing, but what you've written so far contradicts itself on its face. Perhaps it may be the case that any algorithm that guarantees randomness also guarantees uniqueness, but again that doesn't affect the contradiction in what you've written. Perhaps it is the case that the algorithm that CF uses for CFTOKEN guarantees randomness as a side-effect of guaranteeing uniqueness or vice-versa, but again that doesn't affect the contradiction in what you've written. One doesn't need to be a mathematician to see this.

Now, perhaps you will choose to mark this as "seen, but not read" - that's fine with me, I suppose. I'm not sure how you see something without reading at least some of it, or why you'd bother pointing out that you'd done this, but I guess that doesn't really matter. I am offering my response in good faith, as I always do.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Dave Watts, Eidolon LLC

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Dave Watts wrote:
Instead you hide behind a smokescreen of insults and trivial, half-baked ideas. Let's get back to basics. Here again is my attempt at establishing the context in which I said uniqueness is equivalent to randomness:
Uniqueness: If you pick one CFToken from an extremely large list of CFTokens generated by ColdFusion, the probability of there being another one identical to it is negligible.
Randomness: If you pick any arbitrary number of consecutive CFTokens in the list, you will be unable to find an algorithm to use them to predict the next one.
I may or may not be right, but that is another matter. I have at least put up. Whereas, you and Dave criticize and criticize, without ever once telling the forum what you understand by randomness or uniqueness.
So let's skip the chase. Tell us what you mean by "randomness" and "uniqueness". In any context you choose to name. If what I've seen so far is anything to go by, we'll be waiting here till we begin to grow feathers.
This will be my last post in this thread, but I think you deserve as good an explanation as I can provide.
Earlier in the thread, you stated that the words "uniqueness" and "randomness" meant the same thing, in a specific context. Here, you are providing separate definitions for each, and these definitions do not mean the same thing. That was the gist of my earlier point. That's all. I don't even need to define the words to dispute what I see as the contradiction between your own statements. Perhaps you can provide alternative definitions for the two words where they do, in fact, mean the same thing, but what you've written so far contradicts itself on its face. Perhaps it may be the case that any algorithm that guarantees randomness also guarantees uniqueness, but again that doesn't affect the contradiction in what you've written. Perhaps it is the case that the algorithm that CF uses for CFTOKEN guarantees randomness as a side-effect of guaranteeing uniqueness or vice-versa, but again that doesn't affect the contradiction in what you've written. One doesn't need to be a mathematician to see this.
Now, perhaps you will choose to mark this as "seen, but not read" - that's fine with me, I suppose. I'm not sure how you see something without reading at least some of it, or why you'd bother pointing out that you'd done this, but I guess that doesn't really matter. I am offering my response in good faith, as I always do.

Dave, I have just opened my e-mail, and read your response with interest. In fact, though it's too early for me to come to the forum, I decided to make an exception.

Forget the "seen, but not read" quip. We were after all in the heat of the action.

Your present argument is strong. You pong my ping back to me. Quite some food for thought there. It's indeed now up to me to show how the two things weave into one.

I already did so, but entirely in logical symbols. As I said earlier, I'm in the process of translating it from abracadabra into plain English. Not easy when one is in the middle of a hectic stretch of a project.

I hope you will be satisfied by my attempt. Thanks for the challenging read.

Report · Mar 01, 2012

I hope you will be satisfied by my attempt. Thanks for the challenging read.

I am certainly satisfied that you are also responding in good faith, and that's all I can really ask for from anyone.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Dave Watts, Eidolon LLC

Report · Feb 27, 2012

Adam Cameron wrote:
It's so much to that extent that if I didn't know better (due to the last time I indicated that was my suspicion, and you corrected me), I'd again be asking whether English is your first language.

What's your obsession about English as a first language? From a New Zealander at that!

Wisen up, man. There are dozens of different official English dialects in the world. Nationals from Nigeria, Trinidad, Saint Lucia and Russia, whose first language wasn't English, have gone on to win the Nobel Prize in English Literature.

To return to the point, this is an international forum. It is sufficient to be understood. We owe it to each other to make allowances for differences in nationality and language.

I know that you have a reputation to keep as a bully in these forums. Of course, whenever you were spoiling for a fight, I succeeded in flooring you, every time. There wont be an exception this time. I'll repeat what I told you on the previous occasion you mention. Continually making snide remarks on another visitor's language level simply shows you lack manners.

Report · Feb 28, 2012

It's so much to that extent that if I didn't know better (due to the last time I indicated that was my suspicion, and you corrected me), I'd again be asking whether English is your first language.
What's your obsession about English as a first language? From a New Zealander at that!

You have the wrong end of the stick. I have no problem - nor have I ever demonstrated to have one (or I'm sorry if I did, it was not my intent at all) - with people who have English as a second language. Most people, after all, do not have English as their primary language.

What I was saying is that in some situations - this current thread for example - you communicate like English is not your native language, which is odd, given you claim that it is. That's all I meant.

If English wasn't your primary language, you make a pretty good fist of communicating in it. If it is your first language (you have claimed that it is, and I have no reason to doubt you), then you tend to write fairly incoherently at times: it has a tendency to come across as if you don't quite understand the words you're using (in the context you're using them), and often what you say seems unrelated to the subject at hand.

--

Adam

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Adam Cameron. wrote:
You have the wrong end of the stick. I have no problem - nor have I ever demonstrated to have one (or I'm sorry if I did, it was not my intent at all) - with people who have English as a second language. Most people, after all, do not have English as their primary language.
What I was saying is that in some situations - this current thread for example - you communicate like English is not your native language, which is odd, given you claim that it is. That's all I meant.
If English wasn't your primary language, you make a pretty good fist of communicating in it. If it is your first language (you have claimed that it is, and I have no reason to doubt you), then you tend to write fairly incoherently at times: it has a tendency to come across as if you don't quite understand the words you're using (in the context you're using them), and often what you say seems unrelated to the subject at hand.

As anyone can see, except you, of course, your argumentation is rather weak. You tell me I have the wrong end of the stick, but then go on to apologize. I have the right end of the stick, and the word "obsession" is the correct chioce. As I said, there is a precedent in this rude behaviour of yours.

This is a ColdFusion forum. The business is ColdFusion. If a fellow visitor says something that is unclear, or even meaningless, the expectation is that suggestions will aim to point out what was unclear or meaningless. The whole point is to be understood.

However, that isn't the case with your obsession. You simply appear to derive a sense of superiority or some smug satisfaction in embarassing another visitor. Neither you nor anyone else should take my word for it. This forum is universally available on the web. Your intention is there for anyone to see.

The mere fact of commenting on someone else's language level is already a tad insensitive. Yet you have done this repeatedly, by your own admission, returning again and again to the subject.

On a previous occasion, you went as far as to mention that I am a Dutch national, and even that I had supplied that information. I let you know you were wrong. Did you stop there? No.

Now you say I have claimed English is my native language. Well, I didn't tell you it was. Neither did I tell you it wasn't. What I told you, and I am doing so again in this thread, is that that information is irrelevant in a ColdFusion forum and will remain private, especially given the rude and obsessive manner in which you keep bringing it up.

I can guess where the obsession comes from. You come over as uncouth in manner, a bully and someone who overrates himself. I have always resisted the temptation of stooping to your level, and returning your insults and snide remarks. Like all bullies you seem to misinterprete this as weakness. In spite of the intellectual beating you've received from me over the years. But then again, bullies are known for lacking the emotional intelligence to remember the last time they received a black eye. Which is why they frequently have one.

You've succeeded in browbeating quite a number of visitors in the ColdFusion forums. However, whenever you've tried to mix it up with me, I've floored you each and every time. As I promised you earlier in this thread, there wont be an exception this time.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

I like turtles.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

Owain North wrote:
I like turtles.

In my opinion, certainly the deepest wisdom in this thread so far.

Report · Feb 29, 2012

I am trying to simplify my proof to a readable format accessible to everyone in the forum. Please bear with me.

Report · Mar 02, 2012

BKBK wrote:
I am trying to simplify my proof to a readable format accessible to everyone in the forum. Please bear with me.

Here then is an attempt. You can download the PDF from https://acrobat.com/#d=h5Y6AC5XiWCwHHa-BkTe8g.

Report · Mar 02, 2012

I couldn't get to it with my Adobe account.

Permissions issues are the story of my life, though.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Dave Watts, Eidolon LLC

Report · Mar 02, 2012

Not that it helps you Dave, but I could see it fine (albeit it took an absolute age to load). So - BKBK - perhaps the perms are set for some users but not others?

Or Dave, are you clicking just from the email from the forums? I went into the web UI and clicked the link from there (so I was alrady authenticated before clicking the link)?

--

Adam

Report · Mar 02, 2012

Adam, Dave,

Sorry about the trouble with the download link. It took at least 5 attempts to upload it at acobat.com before I could get it to work. It is likely that you tried to download it during the process.

Report · Mar 02, 2012

Not that it helps you Dave, but I could see it fine (albeit it took an absolute age to load). So - BKBK - perhaps the perms are set for some users but not others?
Or Dave, are you clicking just from the email from the forums? I went into the web UI and clicked the link from there (so I was alrady authenticated before clicking the link)?

I was clicking the link in the email, rather than going into the forums and clicking from there. Once I did that I could see it just fine, so there's no permissions issue.

BKBK, on first glance, I must say that you have certainly put a lot of effort into this. Probably more than it really deserves, since I can't really pay you for that effort. But in the end, I still disagree. I will try to address the core of this disagreement after my noon deadline, but for now, suffice it to say that I don't think we agree on what "equivalence" means, and the reduceability of words to logical operands.

All that said, I congratulate you on the most thorough response I've ever seen to a forum post.

Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software

Dave Watts, Eidolon LLC