compilerbitch: That's me, that is! (Default)
[personal profile] compilerbitch


(from the paper I'm currently working on. Look at the Wikipedia article if you don't already know about the problem)

In other news, it seems that I can taste sugar again. No wasabi peas for me for a while. :-)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 01:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] det3.livejournal.com
Heh. I first learned of that dilemma when I read Tannenbaum. Stuck with me ever since.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 02:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] compilerbitch.livejournal.com
For me I think it would probably have been a lecture by Tony Hoare I went to in 1990 or 91, or maybe reading his CSP book, I don't remember. It's a fun problem. It's in my paper because it's a classic example in model checking, so (of course) I couldn't resist including the silly drawing!

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 11:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pinguhateseng.livejournal.com
I had a read but...call me awfully practical, but can't they just take turns to take the plate with the pasta and using one fork, twist and plop appropriate amounts onto their plates? It's not that hard...is it?

I realise it's meant to illustrate a computing issue...'fraid I don't really get the gist though....erm.

Enough of showing my complete ignornace :)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 12:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pinguhateseng.livejournal.com
Re-reading though and pondering...I get the idea better with the "rice and chopstick" issue, assuming each philosopher only has one chopstick.

Hm.

Interesting.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 01:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] compilerbitch.livejournal.com
It's not meant to make realistic sense -- it's actually just a way of making a problem in the theory of concurrency a bit easier to justify. I like [livejournal.com profile] mageboltrat's solution best (see comment below)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 02:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pinguhateseng.livejournal.com
Hee hee that *is* rather funny. And true.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 12:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mageboltrat.livejournal.com
Microsoft as always came up with an innovative solution to this problem

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 01:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] compilerbitch.livejournal.com
I think that just made my office wall... ;-)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 03:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fatdog.livejournal.com
i think the answer is either

a) None of them can use a fork because none of them has any arms.

or

b) Philospohers don't like Italian food.



Do I win £5 ?

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 06:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] compilerbitch.livejournal.com
There's always one as has to complain, isn't there? ;-)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 06:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 4zumanga.livejournal.com
I didn't know there was much left to say about the Philospher's problem. Then again, I spend all my time solving NP-complete problems, and you'd think except for finally answering if P = NP or not, there wasn't much left to say there.

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 06:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] compilerbitch.livejournal.com
I'm certainly not saying anything new about it. :-)

It seems to be an expected rite-of-passage that any new model checker should include a dining philosophers sample. So I did, but couldn't stop myself doing the ubiquitous silly drawing. :-)

(no subject)

Date: 2007-03-26 09:10 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mageboltrat.livejournal.com
nor could I :)

Profile

compilerbitch: That's me, that is! (Default)
compilerbitch

January 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3 45 6789
10111213 141516
17181920212223
24 252627282930
31      
Page generated Jun. 18th, 2025 02:18 pm

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags