multiple outputs

[DDV]

Hi TM.

I have learnt a lot from Terry, and he definitely has a lot to teach, that of course doesn’t necessarily make him a good teacher (I know he has never claimed to be one). I am merely standing up for myself, as an aspiring programmer. I have completed a fair amount of projects, but nothing on this level. So please understand that I have the utmost respect for the programming abilities of the people on this site, including (especially) Terry’s.



I think of him as a programming combatant, and I feel (as if it matters) his “style” might scare of some people from participating (as if that would also matter).



Besides I like a good argument almost as much as I enjoy learning something new about programming.



Bottom-line: No personal insult or offence is intended or inferred in my correspondence, I’m sure Terry takes it from whom it comes.

 

[Gerry]

Alaric said...
"The following is perfectly legitimate in a ControlLogix PLC and it produces a shorter and faster executing rung, there are no branch (BST, NXB, BND) instructions to process."

So... your processor updates outputs as they come rather than at the END OF THE SCAN?

If so... that is a VERY BAD processor! (Unless, of course, you explicitly use IMMEDIATE OUTPUT Control.)

The Series Output is clearly not conditionally dependent!

I can accept the idea of one real output with a multitude of Control Relays...

But... multiple Real Outputs?

Hmmm... I would have a problem with that... especially if there is any dependency.

But then... an intelligent programmer would recognize that and develop his code properly to match the system's logical requirements.

So, to a degree, I can buy it... but, oh-boy, are there rookies out there, or what?

Fancy-Tools can be dangerous!

one red herring after another

some of us older rookies have been putting outputs in series for over 25 years (since the PLC-3 came out)...and coping with asynchronous I/O for even longer.

 

[Terry Woods]

I really wish that everyone would please quit talking to me about "Recursion"!

I did NOT bring up the question of "Recursion"!

Nor did I even suggest that "Recursion" had anything at all to do with "Self-Modifying" Code!

Nor did I ever suggest the idea of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In fact, I made a point of saying that there is no such thing as "intuition" (I meant that in the spooky sense). In humans, all so-called "intuition" is dervied, one way or another, from internalized memories of past "memories" associated, in one way or another, with the conditions being evaluated.

My recent comments about my famous (infamous?) "BE THE COMPUTER" phrase were meant to wake people up to the fact that any programmed process is a direct-reflection of the MIND behind that programming. I can only assume that that MIND is... at least, somewhat... Human.

Keith said...

" I'll flip Terry's axiom a little to fall in line with self-modifying code. Don't think like the computer. Make the computer think like you. Y'all have at 'er."

I hate using the word, but... BINGO!

Yes, yes, yes... my "BE THE COMPUTER" phrase has always meant... YOU! YOU! YOU! YOU, BE THE COMPUTER!

This has always meant that YOU have to see things the way that the computer does... but then, YOU have to "TELL" the computer to respond to those things in the way that YOU WOULD RESPOND, IF YOU WERE THE COMPUTER WATCHING THE PROCESS IN REAL-TIME!

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER abandon your humanity!!!

I've NEVER said... "THINK THE WAY A COMPUTER THINKS". I've purposefully NEVER said such a thing!

The ONLY difference between you and a computer is that YOU have a sense of "self"... and a poor sense of memory!

Yeah, yeah, yeah... the computer doesn't drink beer, it doesn't smoke (at least, not intentionally), and it doesn't swear like a forking sailor (unless, of course, it is commanded to do so - then, I'm sure, it could swear beyond the point of making a Master Chief Bosuns Mate blush!).

NOTE: Give me, and S&M, a little time... I'm sure that Smoke & Mirrors can develop a beer-swilling, chain-smoking, serial-swearing Master Chief sailor type computer in... not very much time! Now... Is that something to shoot for, or what? Damn! Wouldn't that be coooool? I'll bet you couldn't help but take it bar-hopping with you! I'm sure it would be a hit with the trollops! (Whoooaaa... Sack-Time... no?)

Now, back on Topic...

What does "Self-Modification" really mean?
What is the purpose of "Self-Modification?
What is the essence of "Self-Modification"?

How does that relate to human thinking?
Should it relate to Human thinking? After all, the process exists solely to serve Human Purposes!
What is the purpose of Code?

Oh, yeah... I've got more... a lot more... but, I'm going for another cigarette and an MGD, so... later.

PREVIEW OF THE NEXT SHOW:

Even "Data", with his Positronic-Brain, pauses once in awhile... for just a bit... especially when he runs up against something new. Why? Because he is going through his "recorded memories". Those "memories", be they truly "experienced memories" or simply "downloaded memories", those memories serve as his "experience".

If he runs up against a "remembered" experience (actually experienced or simply downloaded), he can than refer to the related memory that indicates how he dealt with the particular issue. If Data is really a clever android, he would have recorded the result of that last encounter. If his last encounter turned out well, then he should probably use the same tactic to handle the situation, unless he has since learned, one way or another, that there might be a better approach. If the previous experience turned out badly, then he should probably consider a different approach. If he doesn't have a history of this particular situation... what then? What approaches are available?

Now, this is the key... What might those different approaches be?

Does "imagination" come into play?

What would those "imagined ideas" be based on?

Hmmmm....

And Now... a word from our Sponsor!

(2394)

 

[rsdoran]

Yes... I always say... BE THE COMPUTER!


I think you will have to modify this, you can not be the computer, and a computer can not be human....at this time.

It should be more like make the computer think as I do, it is just a tool, within its capabilities.

I never get any credit...

I will give Terry his due, he is good but tempermental. When it comes to theory etc Peter actually outdoes him. When it comes to PLCs there have been a few that could match if not exceed him...Allen Nelson comes to mind, where is he now?

Ever seen the movie, "Something the Lord Made", about the first open heart surgery performed? The premise of the story is racial BUT what it boils down to is 2 people, one being a brilliant surgeon but needing the assistance of a technician.

I wish I had someone like Terry around when I was in business. I know I am a good tech with multiple skills, with someone like Terry I would have many opportunities to use those skills.

Ignore the ego, read and learn.

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

Close enough. Are we done yet?

I really wish that everyone would please quit talking to me about "Recursion"!

I did NOT bring up the question of "Recursion"!

No you didn't, but you asked about a ladder rung being re-entrant.

In terms of multiple outputs... all that matters is that the individual output is properly controlled.

This goes back to the question that Peter and I have never resolved over several years... what is the name of that particular style/relationship?

Re-entrant?
Back-tracking?
Partial?
Parallel, or Partial, with additional conditions?

What is it? What is it called???

Tim and Bernies's next posts got me thinking of recursion BUT, re-entrant doesn't apply either.

What is the following programming method/structure called...????

    ??-A      ??-B      ??-C
  
  ---| |---+---| |---+---| |-------(    )
  
           |         |
  
           |         +-------------(    )
  
           |
  
           +-----------------------(    )

This is nested if thens

     if A then

   if B then

     if C then

                  output3 = true

              else

                  output3 = false;

              endif 

              output2 = true;

   else

     output2 = false;

   endif

   output1 = true

     else

          output1 = false

     endif

  

with all the jumping and checking it would probably be more efficient to write

I give up. I tried formatting this with

 and [ladder] and it didn't work
  
  [code]
  output3 = A
  output2 = A and B
  output1 = A and B and C
     or
  [font=courier]output3 = A
  output2 = output3 and B
  output1 = output2 and C

I think most would frown on the last example because it uses outputs for solving logic but it really isn't. The outputs are really just an image table.


[/font]