4 ms·

If there are 2 processes/threads, they are parallel, if there is just one it is concurrent. For example, the event loop in JS is concurrent, offloading computat

If there are 2 processes/threads, they are parallel, if there is just one it is concurrent. For example, the event loop in JS is concurrent, offloading computation to workers is parallel.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
sure but parallel comes anyway from the English word, inheriting the meaning "occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding.", 2 processes that exist in the same time all time are, to coin a phrase, classically parallel (by the original English usage), but two processes where they exist only part of the time at the same time are not parallel in the original meaning although they may be for CS - but the question is if there is a special technical term for this condition that anyone knows of?
- duped 2y ago
  > 2 processes that exist in the same time all time are, to coin a phrase, classically parallel This is not physically realizable. > but two processes where they exist only part of the time at the same time are not parallel in the original meaning It doesn't, both formally and colloquially one would still refer to them as "in parallel." --- In a very loose way you're talking about structured vs unstructured parallelism but it has nothing to do with time, and you can have parallel processes that start at the same point but do not join at the same point and it's still considered "structured." Structured parallelism is where the distinction of where a process starts/joins is meaningful semantically, but there is not really a distinction between "these N things live for the same amount of time" and "N things have different lifetimes" in terms of vocabulary. They're all still parallel or concurrent processes.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    Thanks that was helpful, I suppose when you say vocabulary and colloquially you mean this in the context of Computer Science, since I think parallel outside CS has in some ways both laxer and stricter meanings (that is to say a parallel process in colloquial English usage is something that runs for the same time) That said I have trouble finding resources on structured and unstructured parallel processes, google just wants to tell me about structured and unstructured data, do you have some links?
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      Are you really trying to learn something here? Because it seems you can't accept that you are thinking it wrongly and it has no back in CS (or outside). Google doesn't just want to tell you about structured and unstructured data, what you are looking for doesn't exist. Parallelism (in CS or outside of it) doesn't mean things start and end at the same time just that they happen in PARALLEL. That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp but you need to have some humility to just say: oops, I might have a wrong understanding and might need to fix it. This is healthy and make people smarter.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        probably I should just drop it but >Are you really trying to learn something here? sure, which is why when user "duped" said >>In a very loose way you're talking about structured vs unstructured parallelism I replied >>That said I have trouble finding resources on structured and unstructured parallel processes, google just wants to tell me about structured and unstructured data, do you have some links? As I assumed the structured and unstructured was referring to parallel processes - I can find "Structured vs Unstructured concurrency" but that of course goes back to the top level discussion that concurrency and parallelism are not exactly the same. >what you are looking for doesn't exist. OK, because someone other than you, unless you are using two accounts somewhat suggested that it did exist. That being the user named "duped" that I was replying to and whose terms I used in my question. If you are "duped" (short for duplicated?) then why did you imply these concepts did exist in your earlier message? >Parallelism (in CS or outside of it) doesn't mean things start and end at the same time just that they happen in PARALLEL. Sorry, but the definition of Parallel "outside" of CS - when dealing with time - is "occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding." >That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp but you need to have some humility to just say: oops, I might have a wrong understanding and might need to fix it. This is healthy and make people smarter. OK, but I am pretty used to standard English usage and my understanding is that vernacular usage of parallel - when referring to time - is that they start and end at the same time (which is also how I would define "happens at the same time", evidently you have a different definition of that though), whether or not your or my definition is right it seems to me that my definition lines up with the Oxford Language dictionary definition I quoted above. However given that two lines can be parallel even if they do not have the same length perhaps I am too literal in my time parallel usage - though every usage for time parallel I have ever seen seems to imply running over the same time-span is the meaning. on edit: changed distance to length as distance is meaningful in relation to parallel lines.

If there are 2 processes/threads, they are parallel, if there is just one it is concurrent. For example, the event loop in JS is concurrent, offloading computation to workers is parallel.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

sure but parallel comes anyway from the English word, inheriting the meaning "occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding.", 2 processes that exist in the same time all time are, to coin a phrase, classically parallel (by the original English usage), but two processes where they exist only part of the time at the same time are not parallel in the original meaning although they may be for CS - but the question is if there is a special technical term for this condition that anyone knows of?

duped 2y ago
> 2 processes that exist in the same time all time are, to coin a phrase, classically parallel This is not physically realizable. > but two processes where they exist only part of the time at the same time are not parallel in the original meaning It doesn't, both formally and colloquially one would still refer to them as "in parallel." --- In a very loose way you're talking about structured vs unstructured parallelism but it has nothing to do with time, and you can have parallel processes that start at the same point but do not join at the same point and it's still considered "structured." Structured parallelism is where the distinction of where a process starts/joins is meaningful semantically, but there is not really a distinction between "these N things live for the same amount of time" and "N things have different lifetimes" in terms of vocabulary. They're all still parallel or concurrent processes.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  Thanks that was helpful, I suppose when you say vocabulary and colloquially you mean this in the context of Computer Science, since I think parallel outside CS has in some ways both laxer and stricter meanings (that is to say a parallel process in colloquial English usage is something that runs for the same time) That said I have trouble finding resources on structured and unstructured parallel processes, google just wants to tell me about structured and unstructured data, do you have some links?
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    Are you really trying to learn something here? Because it seems you can't accept that you are thinking it wrongly and it has no back in CS (or outside). Google doesn't just want to tell you about structured and unstructured data, what you are looking for doesn't exist. Parallelism (in CS or outside of it) doesn't mean things start and end at the same time just that they happen in PARALLEL. That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp but you need to have some humility to just say: oops, I might have a wrong understanding and might need to fix it. This is healthy and make people smarter.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      probably I should just drop it but >Are you really trying to learn something here? sure, which is why when user "duped" said >>In a very loose way you're talking about structured vs unstructured parallelism I replied >>That said I have trouble finding resources on structured and unstructured parallel processes, google just wants to tell me about structured and unstructured data, do you have some links? As I assumed the structured and unstructured was referring to parallel processes - I can find "Structured vs Unstructured concurrency" but that of course goes back to the top level discussion that concurrency and parallelism are not exactly the same. >what you are looking for doesn't exist. OK, because someone other than you, unless you are using two accounts somewhat suggested that it did exist. That being the user named "duped" that I was replying to and whose terms I used in my question. If you are "duped" (short for duplicated?) then why did you imply these concepts did exist in your earlier message? >Parallelism (in CS or outside of it) doesn't mean things start and end at the same time just that they happen in PARALLEL. Sorry, but the definition of Parallel "outside" of CS - when dealing with time - is "occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding." >That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp but you need to have some humility to just say: oops, I might have a wrong understanding and might need to fix it. This is healthy and make people smarter. OK, but I am pretty used to standard English usage and my understanding is that vernacular usage of parallel - when referring to time - is that they start and end at the same time (which is also how I would define "happens at the same time", evidently you have a different definition of that though), whether or not your or my definition is right it seems to me that my definition lines up with the Oxford Language dictionary definition I quoted above. However given that two lines can be parallel even if they do not have the same length perhaps I am too literal in my time parallel usage - though every usage for time parallel I have ever seen seems to imply running over the same time-span is the meaning. on edit: changed distance to length as distance is meaningful in relation to parallel lines.