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