Ahmad Samer Wazan's blog

On November 30, OpenAI launched its AI chatbot called ChatGPT. ChatGPT is the most important revolution we have ever had on the Internet, much more important than Blockchains and NFTs. The capacities of ChatGPT are phenomenal. It can do many things, such as writing poems, writing and summarising articles, writing and debugging codes, and solving puzzles and mathematical questions. In addition, the ChatGPT tool can also be used with other tools such as DALL.E 2 (https://openai.com/dall-e-2/) to generate drawings or the Philosopher AI to answer philosophical questions (https://philosopherai.com/). Some tools can also allow the creation of music based on our lyrics. For example, we may use ChatGPT to generate some lyrics and give them to another AI tool to develop our song. If we look at the impacts of these tools pessimistically, the development of AI tools would mean the end of human intelligence and the triumph of human stupidity when only influential individuals can access these tools

Numbers are what makes the rich and the poor...  Numbers are what make good and bad… Numbers are everywhere and everything… They make us love numbers No matter if you don't have a number, borrow one, pick another; just give me a number No time to hear or listen; give me your number  Please don't blame me; I'm like you, a number  We are all added Or divided .....by other numbers Whenever we find a problem with a number, we define another number.... Scientists defined numbers, but if they knew the numbers would describe them, they would have eliminated the numbers But wait … they defined zero Zero is the hero But no one allows me to multiply it by these numbers… Oh dear, they make the disreality reflects numbers!!! What if we forget the numbers  No poor, no rich No thief or cheater To whom do I explain… Life and death are not numbers  Science, love, and humanity don’t know numbers  Work for life, not for numbers  Work for science not for numbers Get us out of the prison of nu

We all learn at school that dividing by zero is infinity. This is, unfortunately not true. So, to explain why I'm going to use successive subtraction. But before that, let's see why most of us believe that division by zero is infinite. This belief comes from the fact that the division's result is producing huge numbers when the divisor converges to zero. So, for example, if m=a/b , we will obtain big values for m as b converges to zero.  Typically from a subtraction point of view, the result of any division operation ( m ) represents a number that we can multiply by the divisor and then subtract from the dividend to obtain a number (called remainder) that is less than the divisor. In arithmetic, we call this Euclidean division: a-m*b=r where r <b . Our objective is to find m that can produce a remainder ( r ) whose value is less than the divisor b . If we want now to divide by zero, the euclidean division will have the following form: a-m*0=r . The question boils down

Oracle Solaris presents an interesting approach for distributing root privileges to Solaris users. Their approach has been stable since it was defined in 2003. The approach adopted the RBAC model for defining roles that Solaris users can assume. Solaris considers the root account as a role that users can take. In Solaris, roles are user accounts that cannot log in; thus, each role has an associated password that can be shared by a group of users that share the same role. From the kernel point of view, Solaris defines four sets of privileges for each process: Effective set, permitted set, Inheritable set, and Limit set. Effective and permitted sets are handled in the same manner as Linux. However, Inheritable and Limit sets are calculated differently during  exec()  call. In particular, Solaris authorizes the inheritance of privileges after an  exec()  call, even when the executable doesn’t have privileges stored in its binary. More interestingly, instead of storing privileges in the ex

I always believed that prime numbers don't follow any clear pattern, but yesterday I learned from this page [1] that any prime number bigger than 3 can follow the pattern (6*n+1) and/or (6*n -1), where n is any natural number. The authors indicate that they verified this theory by generating 1000000 prime numbers using Matlab. Therefore, it seems that there is no official proof of this theory, but also nothing proves that it is an incorrect theory.  Let's suppose that this theory is mathematically proven. Then, two questions can be raised: Question1: Can this theory remove the need to primality tests? Question2: Can this theory allow us to factorize natural numbers efficiently? Before I handle these questions, I want to verify first the prime generation theory. I wrote a Python function that allows finding the count of prime numbers within a range of numbers and comparing this function with another function that follows the brute force method to generate the prime numbers. Here