This is the Indo-Pacific Warfighting Exercise. The purpose is to have the MAGTAP come together and truly be integrated in expedition and advanced-based operations. The more that we come together and exercise in this capacity, it makes us more fluid and ready to operate in this type of environment. By practicing them here, we're truly practicing our readiness to go anywhere here in the Pacific. Push a farm as far as possible on this island away from their actual air base and then bring those logistics capabilities within the aircraft. You just don't get this opportunity every day. So everybody gets to practice something not only together as a team but in an environment that's very harsh if you don't respect them.


Let's also look at an interesting scenario where we have the operator aka the service provider Has the access to the consumer infrastructure. How could that possibly happen? We need to look at some interesting scenarios where we have set-top boxes smart devices in Customer premises known as the customer premises equipment and then we look at the technical report number 69 Which is a precursor to modern technical reports by the broadband forum, and we'd have a look at a use case Set-top or a device which usually lies at the top of a smart television is Programmable because the customer premises has to always update according to certain requirements which are coming from the content provider or sometimes even from the infrastructure provider These devices are attached to the particular service that the service provider or the operator is providing these Devices are in turn connected to Certain network elements in the service provider infrastructure through secure tunnels some some time there's a requirement for the service provider to rewire or Re-home the service on to different infrastructure elements these infrastructure elements are on the network Site so it means there has to be an update in terms of addressing for instance and reauthentication by these devices These scenarios could arise in upgrades if there is a service failure or certain maintenance required all across The service provider would now push certain policies or an executable Down to the customer premises equipment Assuming that the customer premises equipment is programmable and it is part of the Software-defined networking community. Let's look at a scenario where we have the network site on the left-hand side where we have the Northbound interface and then we have the southbound interface where we have the customer premises equipment the organization is actually Responsible for the customer premises equipment as well as for the network elements on the network site We have auto auto configuration server that updates in terms of maintenance failure or an upgrade and it Root it updates through the broadband radio broadband remote access service on the access side the customer premises side we have the Digital subscriber link access module which is more of a customer premises equipment Which receives these updates through the technical report 69 Recommendations, which is nothing but a handshaking and update mechanism to incorporate any code update known as the Over-the-air programming or remote programming for network element for the customer premises devices now the scenario That we could think about an operator programming the consumer infrastructure is some administrative change Which is required by the service provider to be incorporated into the customer premises equipment so the programmable infrastructure is the CPE itself and The the problem actually is that the service provider has to push appropriate policies To the customer premises through SDN mechanism for instance through an open-flow Protocol and in this case Let's assume that there's a requirement for the CPE to Connect to or attach to an authentication server that has migrated so a new IP address Binding is required a traditional approach would have been very hefty for instance, it would have required the Physical replacement of CPEs across all the customers for that particular service or Manual remote login by the service provider staff that at times would have been bothersome because the CPE Would be remotely accessed for each Upgrade by the service provider staff or a lot of emails and telephonic Conversation for the service provider staff to talk to the customer to sit on his CPE and do the changes as dictated but Using the TR zero six nine Specifications this re-homing could very easily be performed. So the programming approach is actually quite simple. That is for an for an authentication service Changing the destination address of of the authentication server Similarly, this could Possibly mean that IP address is being binded or in some other case the authentication or a hashing mechanism It is also being upgraded. This could possibly involve a new kind of like Multi-factor authentication mechanism that has been upgraded. So this could be the Possible programming approach What is programmable in this case? We just have CPE with which itself has the capability to download a software upgrade or a patch or a release and Recompile the transition changes that we expect are that a large number of CPE devices could actually result into a reconfiguration storm if there is an outage Event or if some new service pack is to be downloaded on all the customers The advantage is very obvious and it's very encouraging that using the open-flow mechanism It could allow the management Exeq management processes to be executed much faster. This actually means that the CPE equipment Would now be available to the user more for the data services except for the reference Which is the same for operational opportunities by the ATIS community We have another reference that I've taken from the broadband forum this the technical report 69 and it has gone through multiple iterations and You can have a look at it yourself


What's going on, everyone? Sam here with Layton Sportsguards. We're ripping 2022 Top Triple Threads Baseball. Hobby, 9 box case number 7, pick your team style. We rough our list of names and teams. We have Andy Y with the Cardinals, Ben M Astros, Brian C Orioles, Catherine H. Phillies, Chad W. Athletics, Chris G. Diamondbacks, Chris D. Rockies, Corey O. Tigers Pirates, Derek G. Guardians, Dustin K. Braves, Dylan S. M. with the White Sox, Dylan S. Y. with the Rangers, James P. Royles, Joel M. Mariners, Josh S. Metz, Juan V. with the Blue Jays, Kate S. Cubs, Kyle T. Brewer's, Matthew S. Red Sox, Mike M. Dodgers, Mitchell P. Padres, Morgan L. Nationals, Nathan N. Reds, Rob S. Marlins Giants, Sanjay N. Yankees, Tai W. Twins, Thomas J. Angels, and William P. with the Rays. Good luck here, everybody. That's a level head intake, Mars. That there's no level heads in LSC right now, Forrest. No level heads between the two of us. Absolutely not. Zero heads are level. No. You put the biggest rivalry in sports, arguably. That's true, chef. Everyone thinks they're correct until they're not. That's so true, dude. That's so true. God, there's nothing like a good sports debate. Everyone's correct until they're not. That's good. That's true. Oh my God. I remember I was like eight years old once, and my cousin was like 18 at that time, and he just kept wrecking, like trying, he just kept trying to get under my skin saying Patrick Willis was better than Ray Lewis. And oh my God, I was losing my mind. I was like, I was like that meme where you're like, where the guy's like, like mad crying. Like that was me, dude, when I was eight years old. I was so pissed. I was so mad. I was getting, I was going absolutely ballistic, dude. What's up, DG? Need a big J-Ram? Let's do it, man. Ryan Sandberg. Corbin Burns to 50. 100% agree on that six. God, say has Suzuki Rookie. Mike Schmidt and Reggie Jackson. Nice one here. We've got Rod Carew, Joe Maurer, and Byron Buxton. That's going to be 19 out of 27 for the twins. And then nice one here. Five out of 25. Rookie Otto going to the Rockies. Ryan Belade. Ryan Belade. Belade the Belade. Again, guys, over on TikTok. Link is in the bio if you'd like to join group breaks. We still have limited spots remaining for the early slate of breaks. 259, Nolan Ryan, and the Express. There's Garrett Cole to 299. We've got base, base, base. This is really sick. Going to the Nationals. We've got Stephen Strasberg. Regal Reidy, 11 out of 18. Nasty Patch in the middle of that right there. Hey, what's up, Ben? Ben got the twins on eight. Kirby, Kirby Cut, dude. Kirby Pucka Cut would be insane. Nice Strasberg. Completely agree there, Betty. Triple Threads product. Such a W this year. There's Gavin Sheets. One of three on the three colored patch for the rookie for the White Sox. Grats on that. There you go, White Sox. Yeah, I was going to say that, Ryan. What would we never say? This is Topps right here. Fire. Topps Triple Threads. Maddox, the Professor to 199. Bo Jackson to 75. I think everybody as a sports fan can agree he was disgusting. Yeah. We've got Bench, Cabrera, Jackie Robinson. Nice one here. This is going to the Padres. How about Manny Machado? There you go, San Diego. Triple Threads, Autograph, Relic Card, Gold, Parallel. Padres, Manny Machado. Almost the MVP. This is Pick Your Team Fire. So everything's a little bit different. Yes, Bo Jackson did play football. Andrew Benintendi to 36. For the Royals. Yankees legend, Andrew Benintendi. I know we hit a big one in the last break. Good Christian Yelich, 101. That's pretty sick. Yeah. Yeah, it's the Ruby and number six. Yes, number six. Yeah, that one's so cool, dude. The patch on it is insane. Okay, Ozzie Smith going to the Cardinals. Eloy Jimenez to 125. One sec, guys. Right there. That game used to have the beef and brewers. So sick. Yeah, Triple Reds, Vado. Yeah, there was a Mount Castle, White Will, Juan de Franco, Rookie, Mount Castle, and then there was a Tony Perez, Joey Vado, and one other Red. Who is the other Red? Barry Larkin, White Will, Triple Patch, Auto. There's Cody Belinger. Who's got this team? Yeah, that one was cool, too. Who's got this team? Where are the... There you are. Going to William P. How about Wander Franco? 58 out of 99 on the live auto. Congrats, buddy. Boom. Boom. There he is. Let's go, Will. Holy cow. Wow, dude. Let's go, man. There he is. There's a Wander. We'll get that Mag to write up. Dude, I told you that out of 99 is my favorite. They're so clean, dude. They're so clean. Stuff's so fun, dude. Show me Willie Mays. Oh, Willie Mays would be so sick. Six. How about a Marlins Ichiro? The one-of-one Marlins Ichiro. Xander to 199. Ricky Henderson to 75. Rizzo, Javi Baez. Not Willie Mays, but rookie on-card patch auto is going to be out. Sammy Long. There you go. Six for the Giants. I do kind of agree with that, Betty. Yoan Moncada. That is 36 out of 49. Going to the White Sox. You give it to him? I'm going to take it. I'm going to give it to him until I reach that. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Fair. Very fair. We've got Lubaab to 95, or to 99. And Bryce Harper to 259. Baez. That's Torkelson rookie. Baez and Baez. We've got Aaron Judge, John Carlos Stanton, Glaiber Torres, three of 36 going to the Yankees. What a gorgeous card that is. This one right here. And going to the Red Sox. We've got 12 out of 99. Jarenda Ran on the rookie jersey auto. Congrats, Red Sox. Not so gorgeous. Jose Batista. The bottle. That's how I'm going to say Jose Batista with no... I played golf with it yesterday. Jose Batista? The Jose Batista or just A Jose Batista? The Jose Batista.  That's what? Really? You have him? Someone goes, I have that box cutter. There's Nolan Arnado at 259. Mike Piazza, the pizza man to 299. No one ever called Mike Piazza His satchel page. Baez and Baez. Cool one here going to the Braves. That is going to be Greg Maddox, 7 of 9, the professor. Congrats, Atlanta. And JT Real Muto, 28 out of 75. That's going to the Fills. Congrats, Phillies. Phil Adolfio. J.W., we have him at 400 on the website right now. Lincoln Bio, Tick Tock. LaytonSportsGards.com for all your personal and group break spots. There's Mariano, 92 out of 150. Andrew McCutcheon to 199 for the Brew Crew. Manny Ramirez, Robin Yeo, Eloy. Got going to the Rays. It is Luis Petino, Petino, 50 out of 75. Nice one there. That's cool. His mom and dad are neighbors. That's cool. And Eloy Jimenez, 6 out of 18 for the White Sox on the Jersey Card. I agree with that 6. He might be the best. He might be the best pitcher since Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddox. Randy Johnson, you got to put up there too. Who else would you say we're stuck to? I guess Berlander, I guess you kind of have to make a case for at this point. Best pitcher since Nolan Ryan, who else? Did you put up there? Yeah, sure is there. Yeah, I put the Grom up there. Honestly, who is really good? Prime Granky. That one here you had under a 2ERA. For me though? Yeah, Pedro I put up there too. Some of the older pitchers that relied on painting the corners, more than half of the balls that they struck guys out on were not strikes like in today's game. Randy Johnson, and Jaren Durant, the 1-9 here. The strikes didn't really matter, they were true. Roger Clemens, Maddox. Yeah, we're talking about Maddox. Hit Louis Severino. Yeah, exactly. See, it brought up a good argument too, 6. George Brett, Vladdy, Lou Bob. Yeah, I mean Pedro's probably my favorite spot. Got Matt Olson, breakout season 9 out of 18 for the Graves. And Cedric Mullins, 3 out of 50. Nice one there for the Orioles. Yeah, the Grom's really good too. We got a White Whale. White Whale. Ernie Banks, it's a 2-99. That's Trey Turner to 125. Alex Bregman, Willie Mace. Go with the Relic Card first, but all Baru Han, 16 out of 35. Yeah, I'd hold on to Ali Delacruz, RPA for sure. All right, we've got Vladdy. White Whale is Eloy Jimenez. Go into the White Sox. Nice one there. Congrats, Chicago. Southside. That is Dylan S, Dylan SM. One of one, White Whale. Nice one there, we'll get that one mag too. Grass in there too, yeah. Nice dirty game use patch. Those are always fun, man. Yeah, exactly.  It's kind of like a color match to some degree. GED, it is 4-99 a box. Got a redemption. Redemption on the back as well. Max Scherzer to 259. Bryson Stop, got base. CJ Abrams, Ichiro, and Peter Lanza. Let's go to Derek G over in TikTok chat. Right as you say that, there's Jose Ramirez, 32 out of 36. There he is. Nice one there, there you go, Derek. Take a nice look at it. Game used as well. And we've got redemption. Triple Threads, Autograph. Single Jumbo Relic of Micah Stremski. Going to the Giants. Nice one there. San Fran, there you go, six. Nice one there, buddy. Yeah, nice J-Ram for you, Derek. Congrats, buddy. Derek over on TikTok. Thanks for the support over there, Derek, as well. Do appreciate you, my man. Clayton Kershaw to 99. And Albert Poole Halls to 259. We've got our base. Giancarlo, Stan Mujol, Jose Altuva. Next up, we've got a nice one here. Ryan Howard to the Phillies, one out of 27. Nice one there, Philadelphia. Such a stud. And Alex Kirolov, that's 26 out of 27. Spot, I think it's pretty good. I mean, obviously it's not a deal that we're going to be like pumped that we have in six years because he's going to be washed at that point. But I mean, if we want any chance to win now, you've got to keep judge. And we signed Rodan, so that's pretty lit. CJ Abrams to 199. And Hunter Green to 75. Nice one there. Nice couple of rookies. Ooh, that's cool. Trevor Story, Randy Johnson. And we've got number two of three. How about Mookie Betts, Clayton Kershaw, Cody Bellinger. Nice one there, man. That is so awesome. Going to the Dodgers. That's Dodgers. So we hit two-color, two-color, two-color. Yeah, I'm a Yanks fan too. I love that. And then we've got Zach Gallin. I feel like we haven't had any randoms today. Just one. Knock on wood after that one though. It should be one case. We're going to have like five. Watch. Because we said that, guaranteed random in this bag. Guaranteed random. And if there is, you and I aren't going to be in it. We're not going to be in a good spot. The 299 is Mark McGuire. And John Carlos Stanton 150. See if you get lucky or not. That's cool. Corbin Burns, J-Ram, Mariana. Nice one here. Going to the Mets. That is going to be Peter Lanzo, four out of 18. Polar Bear Pete, Century Mark. That's Jersey. Bat, Jersey. No Marlins yet. I don't think six. No Marlins. And then Reed Detmer's, rookie Jersey, 32 out of 48. We top-loaded it. Top-loaded. Usually with the rookies, if it's like 50 or under, if it's just a base or if you will mag it. But the, like we, I think the only one we've magged so far, mag was the wit that was to 25. Yeah. Yeah. Now we'll, we top-loaded, sleep and top-load everything numbered. Yeah. No matter what break it's from, what card it is, if it's numbered, it gets sleeved and top-loaded. If it's a one-of-one, it gets magged. If it's, you know, a certain value, it'll get magged as well if it's not numbered, that kind of stuff. Yeah. No problem, man. You got it for sure, man. Yeah, of course, man. Absolutely. Got Stan Musial to 99. And Manny Ramirez to 259. Jon, it is pick-your-team, so every spot's a little bit differently priced. Got a Torkelson rookie base. Clayton Kershaw, Ernie Banks. Yeah, right, doesn't it? We've got a Christian Yellich, seven out of 36. Yeah, it was cut long, Dustin, that's why. We had the intention to mag it, but it was... I think the Red Sox were $200 in this break, $200. Yeah, we had the intention to mag it, we just couldn't physically mag it because it was cut long, yeah, yeah, yeah. And we've got Alex Manoa, 21 out of 25 on the Jersey Art. Yeah, so it depends on the team. So a team like the Mariners with J-Rod potential are going to be more expensive than the Rockies. Salvi Perez to 299. And Pink Shane Bos to 125. Base, base, base. We've got Alec Bohm, that's going to be a number of four out of 50 for the Phillies, nice one there. On the green at Jersey Art. Orioles I believe are 89, I want to say. 89 because of Ripken, Mountcastle, Mullins, a few other guys as well. And we've got Jonathan India, 40 out of 48. Going to the Reds. Last box, good luck here everybody. Then we'll do a little recap after as well. Last box magic, Willie Mays hiding in here. Christian Yelich to 199. Frank Thomas to 259. I'll go out with you after to bring Willis card. We've got, say, Azuzuki Rookie. That's sick. Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson. This is so sick, going to the twins. We've got three color, one color, four color. Joe Ryan, number nine of 10. That's so nasty. So nasty. Let's go dude. Nice Joe Ryan. Then we've got Brian Hayes, 32 out of 36. Going to the Pirates. Last pack of the break y'all. We've got Ted Williams to 299. Shipper Jones to 150. George Brett, Vladigrero, Lou Bob. We've got another Peter Lanzo. That's going to be number 23 out of 27. For the cubs, not the cubs, the Mets. I want to say cubs. Rookie mistake there. And then Patrick Wisdom, 32 out of 50. That is going to the cubs. Nice one there. Good way to end it. I'll do it for the break guys. Do a quick recap really quick. Last pack magic there. Alright, we've got Reed Depmer's Angels. Christian Alex Brewer's. Alex Kirolov twins. Triple Dodgers, really cool card there. Jonathan India, that's going to the Reds. We've got Jose Ramirez for the Guardians. Matt Olson Braves, Yankee Strip. Vidal Bruhan Reyes, Greg Maddox for Braves. Eloi Jimenez for the White Sox. Cody Bellinger, going to the Dodgers. Joan Moncada, White Sox. Edgerman and Tendi Royals, Gavin Sheets, White Sox. Triple for the twins. Another relic coming in is Peter Lanza. Thank you. Got autos coming up next. This is going to be Patrick Wisdom cubs. Redemption for Mike Yastremsky Giants. Zach Gallin for the Diamondbacks. Peter Lanza, Mets. Alec Bone, Phillies. Alex Manoa for the Blue Jays. Ryan Howard, Phillies. Cedric Mullins, Orioles. JT Ralph Muto, Phillies. Luis Petino, Reyes. Sammy Long Giants. Manny Machado for the Padres. Steven Strasberg, Nationals. Ryan Valade for the Rockies. One more. Two more. We had a really sick Joe Ryan for the twins as well. Sorry about that, Bill. Bill goes to OCD going crazy because I don't turn the sideways ones the right way. Jose Ramirez was numbered to 36. 36, Derek. Cabrion Hayes on the relic as well. And then our Mags cards. We had a Eloy Jimenez. One of one, White Whale. And a Wander Franco, 58 out of 99. Live Wander. We had a live one. That will do it for the break. Thank you guys again for the fill. Next up we got number eight.


Well, here to welcome our special guest is a special guest herself and one of you. I want to welcome and introduce McCollum High School senior, Rocio Alvarado. Rocio is with us this morning and she recalls a childhood as a new immigrant in the United States and here in San Antonio in which she and her family lived in a small dilapidated house that offered really very little shelter against the cold or the heat of San Antonio summers. But through her hard work and the persistence of her family they were able to get a decent home and to get a car and her parents understanding that she could have a very bright future always encouraged Rocio to do her best in school. And while she's only lived in the United States for eight years, Rocio has made huge strides in closing the language gap that existed for her in her native Spanish versus English. In fact, Rocio has risen from ESL to dual credit and advanced placement courses in McCollum. But still her success hasn't come easy. Hers is a story that I bet a lot of you in this room can relate to. As a sole provider for the family, Rocio's father works long and hard hours for wages that aren't sufficient to pay for his wife's diabetes medication. And over the years, Rocio tried to find ways to contribute to her family's budget including helping her mom to sell homemade tamales outside their home. Rocio is here today because her accomplishments served to demonstrate the unyielding work ethic that she possesses as she strives to break down the barriers in front of her. Rocio is a Trinity Upward Bound student who will be attending UTSA in the fall and who is interested in studying criminology and psychology. Like all of you, Rocio has big dreams and she's worked hard to achieve those dreams. Her story is an immigrant story, an American story, a San Antonio story, and one that we are very proud of. Let's give a huge San Antonio welcome to Rocio Alvarado. Welcome you to my future beloved school, the University of Texas at San Antonio. Rocio holds an honor to be here today to present our next speaker, but before that I want to share a little of my own story with you. Perhaps in my resemble to some of your own, when I came to the United States from a little town in Mexico 10 years ago, I recall a childhood in which my family lived in a small rundown room that offered little protection from the cold and hot Texas summers. As a child, going to college seemed like an impossible dream. In my mind, those who went to college were people with money and more opportunities. However, through hard work and persistence, my family encouraged me to seek opportunities that were not available to them. Despite sacrifices, my parents encouraged me to focus on my education because they believed this to be the key to success in the United States. In the last few years, I have made huge strides in closing the gap between the English language and my native Espanol. I have challenged and prepared myself academically and have risen from ESL, dual credit and advanced placement course. I am here today with the help of Trio Upper Bound and my high school counselor who hopefully will be watching later, Ms. Rangel and counselors, other educators who have been there to encourage me to pursue my dreams. Even when they seem like stars in the distance, I have been admitted to five universities and have received numerous scholarships that will make my college goals come true. Today, in honor of my father who passed away a month ago and in honor of my mother who continues to support my goals, no matter how high they are, I am here to make a declaration along with you that I will go to college, I will graduate and I will become someone that will give back to the country that gave so many opportunities to me. Like many of us, our guest speaker has her own story of resilience and persistence. She attended public schools in Chicago and was raised by parents who believed in the value of hard work and education. She went on to complete degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law. Please help me give a warm San Antonio welcome to our admirable First Lady and a true advocate for education. Ladies and gentlemen, First Lady Michelle Obama. I get to wear a t-shirt. I never get to wear a t-shirt to work because this is such an incredible event. It really is. This is amazing. You all are showing that signing days like these are not just for all American athletes, but they're for all Americans, period. So I want to just give a big shout out to San Antonio, Texas for the great work that they're doing. You all should be very proud of yourselves. We begin. I just want to take a few moments to thank a few people.  As well as his very cool brother, Congressman Castro, and all of the elected officials, all the school administrators, all the university presidents who are here, and of course all of the parents. Let's hear it for the parents. There are a few here. Thank you for being here today. Thank you all for everything you do for these young people. I also want to thank the University of Texas, San Antonio, for hosting us here today. And finally, I have to thank Rocio for that very, very kind introduction and for sharing her story. She is pretty amazing, and I know she represents all of you so well. And really, her story of grit and determination and commitment to education, you know, that's what we're celebrating today. Each of you has your own story of how you made it to this day, a story that includes a lot of other folks who were there with you along the way. Maybe you were raised by a single mom who worked two jobs to put food on the table. Well, this day is for her, right? Maybe a teacher or a counselor encouraged you to apply to that stretch school or to do more than you thought you could do. Well, this day is for them. Maybe your family was like Rocio's, and you came to this country just a few years ago to give you a chance at a better life. Well, this day is the day you all can celebrate another step toward achieving your American dream. Yeah. Or maybe, maybe like me, along the way somebody told you, you would never make it to this day. That you simply weren't college material. Well, this day is for the doubters and the haters, too. It's the day that they see how wrong they were. This is their day, too, but most of all, this day is for you. It's for all those years of hard work you all put in, right? All those late nights and tough classes, right? All those obstacles that you fought your way through because no matter what, you were determined to go to college, and you did it. You made it.  So let's just take a moment to give yourselves a round of applause to the San Antonio Class of 2014. We are all so proud of you. We're so proud to be here. I didn't want to be anywhere else but here with you. This is a big day. And while my main reason to come here was to celebrate with you all, I also want to talk to you about another big day that is on the horizon for you. And that is the day you graduate from college. That's right. And see, what I've learned is that reaching a milestone like this means that you've just raised the bar for yourself, all right? It gets higher because just getting into college isn't the ultimate goal. You have got to stay focused once you get there. And you've got to get that degree or that certificate. And you've got to be thinking every step of the way. What comes next? Start thinking like that. That's something that I learned from my parents. My family didn't have much money. My parents were working class folks, but they always taught me that going to college was the expectation. There was no other choice. So I focused my entire high school career not just on getting a high school diploma, but on getting into Princeton. And I knew I needed to have a clear plan to reach my goal. And I knew that it was my responsibility to execute that plan. It was my job. So like many of you, I worked hard in high school. I made sure that I took the right classes. I studied 24-7, and I agonized over those college essays. I know you all are happy that's done, right? And by the time senior year rolled around and I finally got that acceptance letter, I actually ended up feeling more relieved than excited. I mean, I definitely celebrated that important achievement, but I quickly got my mind ready for my next goal. I was already thinking about what I needed to do. I knew I needed to be as focused about getting my college degree as I was about getting my high school diploma. So I started developing my plan to get through college. What courses should I be taking? How hard would I need to study to get the grades that I needed? What would I need to do to get into graduate school? What kind of career did I want? Those were just some of the questions that were rolling through my head. And today, I hope that all of you are starting to ask yourselves some of those questions. I hope you're asking, what am I going to do this summer to prepare for my first semester in college? What do I want my major to be? How am I going to pay tuition year after year? Should I get a part-time job or not? What's my plan to pay off my college loans when I'm done? And if those questions feel a little scary, that's okay. That's actually a good thing because let me tell you, getting through college requires persistence and focus and determination. And there are going to be times when you feel like you're going to fail. And that definitely happened to me. I thought I had done everything I could do to prepare myself for Princeton, but when I got there, I was totally overwhelmed. I didn't have any friends. I didn't know how to pick my classes. I didn't even bring the right size sheets from my bed. It was pretty pathetic. But step by step, I developed my plan and I got better and better at executing it. And eventually, I found my way. I went to the Student Multicultural Center, started making new friends. I reached out to an advisor who would answer any questions that I had. And I studied as hard as I could to get the grades that I wanted. And soon enough, I realized that I had everything I needed to handle college. I knew how to work hard. So do you. I knew how to battle through adversity. So do you. I knew how to ask for help when I needed it. What I learned was that the same qualities that got me through high school would be the same qualities that would get me through Princeton and later through Harvard Law School. So I want you all to understand that those moments when you're feeling anxious or insecure, those moments when you're not sure you can reach that next level, those are the moments when you shape yourself into who you want to be. All right? That's actually proven by science and research that shows that when you think hard about something or you struggle to solve a problem, whether it's math or science or a problem in life, your brain is actually growing. You're actually becoming smarter because of that struggle. So embrace it. Relish those moments. Those are the moments when you've got to tell yourself to reach higher. And that's really my message to all of you today. You have come so far. You've climbed so high to get here. But you have got to keep reaching higher. And that's a message that I've been delivering not just to you guys here but to young people all across this country because while we adults have to do our part to give you the support you need like building the best schools and training the best teachers in the world, really at the end of the day, the most important person in your education is you.   You decide whether or not you're going to ask for help or you're going to quit. That's on you. That's what I've been speaking about with young people over these past few months. And today I'm also here because I'm proud to announce that I'm giving this effort that we're going to embark on a name and an aspiration. We are calling it what? Reach higher. Makes sense. Reach higher. Reach higher is my new initiative. And it's about inspiring every student in America to take charge of their future by completing their education past high school, whether at a professional training program or a community college or four-year university or college. Because while it's good news that high school graduation rates have climbed to their highest levels ever in this country, we also know that in today's world, a high school degree simply isn't enough. To get a good job, to compete, you have got to reach higher. The fact is, a generation ago, our country had the highest percentage of college graduates in the world. But today, we have dropped all the way to 12. And that's unacceptable, right? That's not who we are. And all of you have a role to play to help get us back on top. Because the education you get today won't just help you compete. It's going to help our entire country compete in a global economy. So with this initiative, we're going to make sure that every student in this country understands what they need to do to complete their education and take their place on that world roster. We're going to be focusing on things like financial aid, summer learning opportunities that get you where you need to be, getting kids off of high schools and on the college campuses for visits, exposing them to different careers, and supporting high school counselors so that they can keep on helping more kids like you get into college. And we're kicking everything off today. This is the kickoff today by spreading the spirit of this signing day all across America. So what we've done is that we've asked everyone to take a picture in their college t-shirt or in their colors, their hat. We want them to Instagram and Facebook it, tweet it with the hashtag reach higher. And we've got everybody doing this. At the White House, everybody's wearing their high school gear or their college gear. The President is wearing his colors. The Vice President and Dr. Biden. So we want Americans all across the country to join in as well. So this is a call not just to the young people in America, but to everyone in this country to help with this goal. We need everybody to reach higher for our young people. We need more parents reading to their kids at an early age. We need more businesses offering jobs and internships for young people like all of you. We need more foundations offering college scholarships. And we need more communities doing what you are doing right here in San Antonio, like building new preschools, you're doing that here. Like recruiting volunteers to help students fill out their financial aid forms. You all are doing that here in San Antonio and hosting career fairs and college summit days and signing days just like this one.  A community coming together to lift up its young people so they can fulfill every last bit of their potential. And we're seeing more and more communities from California to Iowa to Philadelphia. They're coming up with creative new ways to encourage their students to complete their education past high school as well. And while we've still got a lot of work to do to spread this message all across the country, we know that in the end a big part of this effort is in your hands as young people.  So no matter what life throws your way, because it has and will continue to mess with you. Life is a trip. But no matter what, whether that's a tough class, financial difficulties or something else, it's going to keep coming. But you have got to stay focused on that horizon for yourself. You have got to keep your heart in the game.  Can you do that? You guys ready for that challenge? I think that you are. But I think now is a good time that we go into that college commitment pledge, right? You all know what I'm talking about. I know you all have been practicing this pledge and we are going to do it together. Are you all ready? All right, here's what I want all my high school college bound graduates to do. I want you to raise your right hands, stand up straight, stomachs in, back straight, chin, head proud, and repeat after me. I believe in my future and myself. I commit to enroll in college. I commit to persevere when I get there. I commit to graduate. And no matter what, I commit to always retire for myself, for my family, and for my community. All right, so seniors, now comes the hard part. You have got to make that pledge a reality, all right? Because I don't know if you know this, that there's something I'm going to be watching you first of all, and you cannot break a promise to the first lady of the United States of America. Come on now. I'm counting on you all. I am looking you all in the face and I know that you can do this. Go in there knowing that you can do this.  You belong in those seats. Do you understand me? If I can do it, you can do this. It is not rocket science.  That's what matters, all right?  Make your families proud, your community proud, all right?  Don't suffer by yourself. Everybody needs help. I need help every day. So I want you guys to always reach out and ask for help. Will you promise me that? All right. I cannot wait to see what you all do with the rest of your lives. I am so honored to be here. Congratulations. And I will see you in a few years when you get those degrees, right? God bless you all. Congratulations.


Next question is from Roatan Barb. I will be 60 in 2 months and weight train 3-5 times per week and also walk 12-15,000 steps per day. I have been on a fitness journey for 20 years and count my macros, but I am struggling to reduce my body fat and increase my muscle mass. I hired a personal trainer a year ago and have increased my weights consistently. I am also following anabolic. I am not sure if it is my age, but I am just not seeing results. I know when I over train, which I tend to do, and I work a high stress 60 hour a week desk job and wonder if stress is playing into it. I watch my sleep and get consistent 7 hours per night. Any suggestion? There is a little bit that contradicts itself there because he says that he increases... This is a guy, right? A woman. She says she increases her weights, so I am assuming that means she is adding more weight and getting stronger, but then she doesn't think she is seeing results. I am assuming that what she is alluding to is that she is not seeing physical change in maybe her body fat percentage, but if you are... Not seeing as much definition. Right, because if you are adding weight to the bar and you are getting stronger... That is one of the best positive signs. Right, you are changing, and a lot of times if you are not seeing the reduction in body fat or muscles aren't standing out more and you are not looking a certain way, I would address more things related to what you alluded to, which is stress and diet. I will say this, just based off of, and I don't know you, but just based off of this message, three to five days a week, you know how many steps you are taking, what your macros are, you work a high stress job, you watch your sleep very carefully, I think stress is playing a very big role. I think you are over focused and hyper focused on everything. I would guess, again I don't know this person, but I would guess you are type A and a bit obsessive with the workouts and the nutrition. Now what I would say is I would take a step back from the exercise that you are currently doing. I would take six weights, no more than three days a week, and I would incorporate recuperative type activity. Yin yoga would probably be phenomenal. Meditation would probably be phenomenal. Now if you are listening to this right now, and when I say Yin yoga, you roll your eyes or cringe like, oh I can't do that, I can't sit still, that's a sign. That's for you. Yeah, it's probably something you are going to benefit from. Seven hours of sleep, also probably a little low considering all that activity. I would aim for eight hours of sleep, at least two days a week, and create a sleep routine. Try this, maybe on one of the days that you are doing all that exercise, do a Yin yoga class and about two hours before bed, do a sleep routine. Turn off all your electronics, go by candle light or by like a Himalayan salt lamp, wear blue blocker glasses, relax, calm, try to get eight hours or eight and a half hours of sleep, and then see what happens. I was shocked years ago, I had a client who was just fanatical about our workouts, and one of her workout days was running, and this was early on in my career when I started to piece together the stress piece, and I said, you know, let's try replacing the run that you do on Sunday with a yoga class and some meditation relaxation, and she's like, I'm going to gain weight, I'm not going to burn as many calories, and I said, well, let's just see what happens. Well, at first, she didn't gain weight, she didn't lose weight or gain weight, but I mean, that was a great plus. I said, wow, you're not burning as many calories, but you haven't gained any weight, something interesting may be happening. Well, over the course of a few months, her body started to respond positively again, and it was definitely that over-application of stress. Here's what you need to do.  Don't do anything. Then come back and see. I mean, it's going to be a great determiner as to whether or not you're spinning your wheels too fast. That's right, America's favorite trainer has spoken. There it is. It's hard to answer questions like this because we don't know enough information, right? And so we're always reading into it, trying to figure out what exactly does she mean by this, because it does sound like you're very meticulous about everything. It does sound like you're high stress. It does sound like you're training plenty. You're training three to five days a week, especially at an advanced age, and you're only getting seven hours of sleep. And I don't know where your caloric intake is, and I don't know if what you're not happy with is the visual change that you may or may not be seeing in your body, and that's your main concern. And then I would also add that, okay, if that's what it is and you're doing this, maybe it's a caloric intake. And also reevaluate your goals.  That's really tough to do. And if you're somebody who is also burning the candle at both ends a little bit, it's even more tough. That's a very fine dance. You know what this reminds me of? I've trained people like this, where they just got everything planned out. They know everything. They're doing crazy workouts. And they're like, my body's just not changing. And I'm looking at them, and I'm like, you're shredded.   Relax for a second. I've had a few clients like that, where they're just like, oh my, this little bit of body fat on my hip, or this is not working. I'm like, you're fucking... Too obsessive. Well, if I had a client who's 60 and is working like crazy, and is training three to five times a week, and we're adding weight to the bar, we are celebrating. Now if my client came to me and said, my main goal is to get leaner and get shredded, well then I'm not really worrying about adding weight to the bar, and I'm probably gonna restrict their calories more and try and lean them out. And I'm not concerned if they're not adding weight to the bar and building a bunch of muscle, because they said, Adam, I really want to get lean. So you're kind of like wanting your cake and eat it too. It's like you're wanting to get stronger, build muscle, but also lean down. Also I'm gonna work six days a week. I'm also going to train five days a week. That's a lot going on that you're demanding from your body. Maybe be a little more realistic with what your goals are and focus on one of those and celebrate that. If it's getting stronger and building muscle, you're probably doing that. You're adding weight to the bar. It's happening. Now if you don't like what you see visually, we'll switch your goal to be more aesthetic driven, less focused on strength and building muscle, and start to do something that, to Sal's point, maybe you're doing less of the weight room training, more recuperative stuff, you're restricting more calories, or adding in more walks in your day, stuff like that to restrict or to cut back on calories to lose body fat. So that it's hard to try and... Yeah, and then the part where she says, I know I over-trained, it's like a which I tend to do, high stress, 60 hour work, hour a week desk job. She's already saying, I'm wondering if stress is playing a role to... Look, I've talked about this... If you think it is, it probably is. Yeah, it is. And I've told you, I've talked about this study several times on the show. The relationships that you have with the people around you have more of an impact on your health than your exercise or diet alone. So maybe one of those days that you're working out, go hang out with someone and have meaningful relationships. What you may actually find is, by doing that, you start to care less about and obsess less about how you look, and maybe you are already shredded. Again, I've had clients like this where they're like, ah, my body's not responding. I'm looking at them like, well, it's not going to respond because you're already at the pinnacle. You're like at the peak, maybe take some focus off of that and focus on other things. And again, those relationships with the people around you can have more of a positive impact. So if you're really focused on your health, if that's an issue where you're lacking, I'd say maybe place a little bit of focus there. I just pulled up the lady who's 60. She looks good, bro. I knew it. Yeah, of course. I knew it. Yeah, she's got shoulder definition. She's pretty lean. That's what I thought. That's what I thought.  You're right, Sal. I wonder if she's already probably. Yep, that's right.  You and I, if you were a client of mine, we'd be high-fiving. And I'd be talking to you.  Go hang out with your friends. Right. I would be talking to you more about going easier on the pressure that you're putting on yourself because you look phenomenal. You look phenomenal for anybody.  So I thought. And if you're also adding weight to the bar. She was just asking that You're searching for compliments. I'm going to be honest. You're fishing.


Αυτό είναι το εξαναγωγή, αν και εξαναγωγή βρήκουμε στους εξαναγωγές, τότε η εξαναγωγή και το εξαναγωγή δεν έδειξαν την εξαναγωγή, αλλά είναι δυσκολο the same as before, όπως η εξαναγωγή πρέπει να πει να πει να είναι πληροχή. Έτσι έχουμε δυσκολογή δυσκολογή, όπως είχαμε για τα κοινότητα της εξαναγωγής. Ξεκρισμό, το οποίο μας πιστεύει, είναι ότι όσο οι εξαναγωγές που βρήκουμε είναι, όταν έχουμε δυσκολογή εξαναγωγή, την εξαναγωγή που στην αλλαγή της λόγου της εξαναγωγής σε μεγάλι, εάν θα και να αφήσουμε από την εξαναγωγής και τα εξαναγωγή,您 θα φυσκευεί ο εξαναγωγής και το υποσχεύειο του εξαναγωγή είναι καλά αφιξά σε π ignorance και στην εξαναγωγή. Αυτή η σημεραίω να ξεκινάω όλα αυτά Could you please answer any questions? Πάμε για καλκολούς και αλgebra. Βλέπουμε ότι μπορούμε να κάνουμε όλα αυτά τα καλύτερα πράγματα, αλλά βλέπουμε και φορές και another time in the last 2 days that there are some things they cannot do. Και η πιο στιγμή που έχουμε δει τώρα με, I don't know, 3 different proofs, is that transitive closure is not first-order definable, so it's not expressible in algebra or calculus. In particular, algebra and calculus cannot express queries that embody recursion, such as, yes, of course, oh yes, yes, yes. So the aggregate operator, this is a very good question. The aggregate operator really involves second order logic in some sense, because what you do is you have an equivalence relation in action and you work with equivalence relations of this and there is a lot of work that is going to aggregate operators. The leapkin among others has done the work. Yeah, things get much worse when you do that, yes. The other thing also that is almost the topic of a different lecture is all this discussion that we have had here assumes set semantics, that our queries return sets. But in an actual database system, the queries don't return sets. They return multisets or bugs. In other words, when you do the projection, if you eliminate two columns, you may get identical tuples. The database system will return these tuples unless you explicitly ask it. And this makes perfectly good sense precisely because you want to compute averages, aggregate operators. Let's say you want to compute the averages of all salaries. Some people may have the same salary in the same department. You don't want to throw this out. You will mess up the average. So back in 1993, there was a paper by Surajit Saoud-Hourian-Mosevardi that they said, look, you database systems got it all wrong. You did Sandra Merling got it all wrong. You studied these problems with set semantics. What happens with bug semantics? Well, the situation is very embarrassing. We don't know if conjunctive query containment under bug semantics is decided. We don't know that. We know that conjunctive query containment with inequalities, not equal, is undecidable. That's a paper that Eric V, Jayram, and myself had in post 2006 with a reduction from Hilbert's 10th problem. But the problem that's open is conjunctive query containment under bug semantics. That's open. Is it decided? It's Ben here. Ben, you've tried this problem, right? With Swastika at some point, right? It's hard, right? Ben says it's hard, it's really hard, okay? So yeah, so there are a lot of things we still don't understand, including this one. So I want to finish by remaining, I have 35 minutes to tell you a little bit of the story of the catalog. So that's a declarative language that augments the language of conjunctive queries with recursion mechanism. So it's very amusing in 1979. Eho and Ullman, you can't get more distinguished computer scientists than that, published a paper in POPL. This is a programming languages conference, the top conference, and they showed that no relational algebra expression can define transitive closures. They didn't know that Fresen knew that back in 1954, right? And we saw this here with Eren Forrester as a Games. But they discovered it and they had very good intuition. They essentially came up with one of the proofs that we saw here. And they get credit for bringing to the programming language community and the database community in particular, the fact that SQL cannot, as it was at the time, could not express recursive queries such as transitive closures. And now we understood from the discussion we had today, the last two days we understand the reason. Calculus is first order logic and only express local properties. You can't tell apart using first order formulas, graphs of this type, cycles and unions of two cycles. In particular, this means if you have a database that has information about parent, you cannot write an algebra or a calculus expression that defines ancestor. Now it's interesting, of course, that if you think about paths in a graph or ancestor, this is an infinite union of conjunctive queries. But the result tells you it's not equivalent to any finite union. So this really suggests a severe limitation in the expressive power of algebra and calculus. So what could the people in databases do? Well, when we teach the undergrad course, we tell the students that SQL is very nice, it's declarative, but if you run into trouble, you can always bring in C or Java through embedded SQL, you make a call and you write any recursive program you want. This is okay, but it's really a dirty solution, it's an inferior solution, because the whole point of going to SQL and a higher level language was to separate the design from the implementation. You go to a high level and it destroys the high level character of SQL. And the other possibility is to go back to the drawing board and see what can we do to augment the expressive power of calculus of first order logic with some high level declarative mechanism for recursion. In fact, this mechanism has been mentioned here under the name of fixed point logics. I just want to give you a different perspective of this. But such a mechanism would be superior to the previous solution because it maintains the high level character of calculus. So, the catalog, here is the slogan. The catalog is conjunctive queries plus recursion. It's what you get by forcing a marriage between conjunctive queries plus recursion. And in fact, the language was introduced by Sandra and Harrell in another paper, not the paper that Anous mentioned before, in 1982. And since that time, has been studied by the research community in great depth. I mean, there are literally hundreds of papers, scores of PhD thesis. It was when I entered the database field, I've been trained as a mathematical logician, by I went to my first database conference in 1987. I knew very little about databases and I was like a child in a candy store. I could understand half the papers because they were about the catalog. The catalog was familiar with because I had studied under the name of inductive definition. So, by 1995, this had gone out of fashion in databases and you found late 90s relatively few papers. In the last five or six years, there's been an amazing comeback of the catalog from all sorts of different areas of computer science. People have used versions of the catalog to specify network protocols. This is Joe Hellerstein and his students, Buntau Lu and others. People at Microsoft have used the catalog as access control languages. There is a company in Oxford that is using the catalog in program analysis and so on and so forth. In fact, there was a conference on the catalog 2.0 at Oxford last year and there's going another one in Vienna in the next fall. So, the language has found other applications outside databases. And finally, the people that designed the SQL standard gave in and decided to introduce a version of the catalog that I'm going to tell you about called linear catalog. So, SQL 1999 and subsequent versions of the standard support catalog in this restricted form that I will try to explain. So, what is a catalog program? It's basically a finite set of rules that express conjunctive queries. The only difference here is that before when we had a single conjunctive query, we had a name for the head that did not appear in the body. Here, some names on the head may also appear in the body. And that's where recursion comes into the picture. And I'll show you lots of examples. So, a catalog program is a finite set of rules. It's expressing a conjunctive query, but some will care both on the left and the right. The ones that occur both on the left and the right are called intentional database predicates or recursive predicates. The ones that occur on the right, but not on the left, are extensional. And the idea is that the extensional and ones are the given predicates. It's what we have in the database. The rules express some knowledge and they are used to define the intentional predicates. That's what recursion is all about. So, let's look at two examples. This is, again, the transitive closure, reincarnated now as a catalog program. We saw syntax, Anous showed yesterday how to do it in least fixed point logic. Well, for us here is going to be a rule, a catalog program with two rules. So, T says there is a path from X to Y. So, how can we have a path of X to Y? If there is an edge from X to Y, or there is a Z and there is an edge from X to Z and the path from Z to Y. And then there is the divide and conquer version, so to speak, in which you say, you replace the second rule by TX, Z and TZY. And that says there is a path from X to Y if there is a Z, such that there is a path from X to Z and the path from Z to Y. That's a divide and conquer. So, intuitively, this is what is catalog programs. Do, of course, we have to give proper semantics and make sure that they, in fact, they define the transitive closure. We can allow, here is a program with several, with two recursive predicates. Odd says there is a path of odd length from X to Y and even says there is a path of even length. So, here one is used to define the other. You define there is a path of odd length if there is an edge or there is a Z and there is a edge from X to Z and the path of even length from Z to Y and odd the other way around. So, here we have two recursive predicates, two IDBs, even and odd and one EDB. So, we can think here that the catalog program gives us a recursive specification of the IDB predicates even and odd in terms of the EDB predicate is given to us. We use the catalog program to define even and odd. So, this is a case of mutual recursion, of course. What is the precise semantics of a catalog program? Well, you can give two types of semantics, declarative semantics and procedural semantics and then you can prove that the declarative semantics matches the procedural semantics and that's what I want to do here. So, the declarative, you can think of it as denotational semantics. You give an object which is the meaning of the program and the procedural or operational, you give an algorithm for computing these semantics. Now, I could do it through the least fixed point mechanism but I want to give you a slightly different description of this which somehow motivated from the first programming course in which we teach our students recursion, right? So, when we teach recursion, we say, I look at the factorial function, it has this nice recursive definition, right? And if I had plus and times, I can define exponentiation. In fact, there was a language called Pascal, right? I didn't have exponentiation explicitly.  So, what's going on here? What is going on with this is that we can write recursive equations that define functions over the integers using plus and times. And then what we prove there, of course, in recursive function theory is that there is only one function that satisfies this equation. We want to do something similar. We want to write recursive specifications but what we want to do here in the recursive specifications, we don't have plus and times. All we have around are the operations of relational algebra. So, you can think of a data log program as being a system of recursive equations where the operations are the operations of, some of the operations of algebra. So, here is how it goes. If I give you a data log program, this may have many predicates, many recursive predicates. For every recursive predicate, you write an equation. What do you do? For every equation, you take the expression on the right-hand side, that's a conjunctive query, so you can write it in algebra. And you combine the right-hand sides of the different rules for the same predicate using union. So, for instance, in the case of the transitive clause, we have only one recursive predicate, T. So, this ST is E union. If I write the body of the second rule in algebra, it becomes pi 1, 4, sigma 2 equal 3, T cross T. So, that's a recursive equation that involves the data log program. And we can do the same thing if we have two predicates. Now we get a system of equations, one for every recursive predicate. So, that's a system of recursive equations. Now, this is analogous to the situation of what we had with recursive functions, but, unfortunately, it is not true that there is only one solution to these recursive equations. In there, we can have many solutions. So, in fact, every transitive relation containing E would satisfy these equations. So, we have many solutions. So, we can say that the semantics is the unique solution to this specification. So, when we have many solutions, we hope to find a nice solution. And here, there is the smallest beautiful approach. That will give you the least fixed point semantics. Or, big is beautiful, you got the greatest fixed point semantics. So, it so happens that people chose here the least fixed point semantics. So, the theorem is that every recursive equation arising from a data log program has a smallest solution, smallest with respect to the partial order. If I had two, three, five recursive predicates, it's the extension of the partial order coordinate-wise. So, every recursive equation arising from a data log program has a smallest solution. So, in the case of this data log program, the smallest solution actually is the transitive clause. So, that's why if we take this data log program, view them as recursive specifications, and ask for the smallest solution, in that sense, this data log program gives us the transitive clause. It's the smallest solution to the recursive specification. And this is a very special case of a general theorem called the Kanaster-Tarski theorem, which was not proved, it's not a joint paper. These are different papers. And interestingly enough, Tarski's paper that has this is his most cited paper, although it's one of his most trivial theorems. And it has to do with smallest solutions of recursive equations arising from monotone operations. So, what was crucial here was that all the operators we have allowed in data log programs are monotone. We have allowed disjunction, cartesian product, projection, and selection involving equality. And in fact, I'm going to just quickly sketch the proof of this. So, we have these declarative semantics as the least fixed points, the least solutions to these specifications. Of course, I haven't showed you that these least solutions exist, but I will in a minute. Let's look at the procedural semantics. Well, we can give different meaning to the programs through a bottom-up evaluation. So, what do we do? We have these rules. Remember, we have the given predicates and the intended predicates, the recursive ones. We start and we instantiate all recursive predicates to empty set. Now, the right-hand side is a conjunctive query. So, we can take this value and apply the rules, obtain new values for the heads, and therefore update the heads. Now, with these new values of the head, we plug them in and we repeat until there is no change of the IDP predicates. When there is no change, we stop and we report this as the result of the data log problem. So, this is the so-called bottom-up evaluation or naive evaluation where you have a four-loop or a y-loop until no change appears. So, for instance, if you do this for the transitive closure, P, you get a series of sequence of binary predicates. T0 is the empty set, Tn plus 1 is what you get by taking the rules and plugging for T what you had in the previous state, and so on. I'm not going to, these are all exams, I trust you can go over them. So, here is the result that I want to get into that if you have a data log program, then the following are true. The bottom-up evaluation of the procedural semantics terminates with a number of steps bounded by a polynomial in the size of the database instance. And the declarative semantics coincides with the procedural semantics. And the proof is really not difficult at all. For simplicity, let's assume we have just one recursive predicate. And let's assume that the arity of this recursive predicate is k. So, by induction, we saw that the nth iteration is contained in the nth plus one iteration. This uses the monotonicity of the building blocks that we have, okay? T0 is empty, and then we use the monotonicity to get a T0 contained in T1, and we assume that Tn is contained in Tn plus one, and then the monotonicity of units of conjunctive queries gives us this. So, we have an increasing sequence of binary, of carry relations. But these are carry relations on the active domain of the database. But this is a finite set. Therefore, this sequence has to stop. It cannot keep increasing. In fact, there is some m, which is at most the size of the active domain to the k, at which level we get Tm equal Tn plus one. So, before we hit this, somewhere before up to the active domain of i to the k, we are going to find that this iteration has stopped. So, we know that this iteration has stopped at some point. So, this was the termination. And now, so we have found our solution, right? Because we have Tm equal Tn plus one. So, at this point, we have a solution to the recursive specifications. Now, we're going to prove this as a smaller solution. And we prove by induction that if we have another solution, then every level of the iteration is contained in this other solution. Again, this zero is empty, so it's contained in every solution. And again, we use the monotonicity. So, you put the two together and you prove that when we have stopped, Tm is contained in this star. So, this is the smaller Tm, remember Tm was the same as Tm plus one, is the smallest solution of the recursive equation. So, we have achieved both things here, right? We have proved that the smallest solution exists, so the declarative semantics is well defined and it's obtained through this bottom-up evaluation. So, this is a very special case of the Kanaster-Tarski theorem. It's the same argument that you used to give meaning to semantics to least fixed point logic. But here it comes as a very clean as conjunctive queries plus recursive. What you get in the washout of this that for every fixed program, this is data complexity. The bottom-up evaluation can be carried out in polynomial time. Why is that? The reason is that the number of iterations is bounded by polynomial in the size of the database. The degree of the polynomial is just the arity of the recursive predicate if we have one. Every step of the iteration can be carried out in polynomial time because we do a relational algebra evaluation, right? On some fixed query, whatever we have from the data log program. So, polynomial times polynomial, we get polynomial. By the way, since we saw before that we can do data complexity in log space, why can't we do this in log space also? What's the problem? What's that? No, but what we do in every step is first order operation, right? On some fixed query. Let me just say very quickly. The reason is we have to carry the relation we are building along. We have to store it, right? And that's polynomial. As we will see, you cannot do data log in log space unless very strange things happen. So, the bottom line is that the data complexity of data log is in P. So, it's a very important result because you wanted to add recursion, but you didn't want to get the complexity outside polynomial time, okay? So, the data complexity of data log is in P. The combined complexity, however, is high. It's exponential time complete. I won't show you this. So, there is a price that you pay there. So, this is the price of recursion, if you will, at the level of combined complexity, right? Remember, for calculus, for first order logic, it's P space complete, but for data log, it jumps to exponential time complete. But data complexity is still in P time. Let me show you two interesting programs, two interesting data log programs because all we have seen so far is the transitive closure and this, even and all. Non-two-colourability can be expressed by a data log program. Why is that? Because non-two-colourability is the same as there is no cycle of odd length, right? So, what we can do is take the previous program we had for computing odd and even, that's the reason, one of the reasons I had, I wanted it. So, odd x, y and even x, y says there is a path of odd length, there is a path of even length between x and y. And then we have another predicate Q with no variation, it's a zero-ary predicate that is true if and only if there is an x such that there is a cycle of odd length from x to x. So, you can do non-two-colourability in data log. Okay, that's, in some sense, a very simple data log program with a somewhat of non-trivial proof of correctness because you need to know the theorem from graph theory, right? By the way, can you do, as a sanity check, can we do three-colourability? Can you write a total problem for three-colourability? What would happen? Was that, yes, we would collapse NP to B, but actually we know better that it follows from the work of Anous that we cannot even do it, we cannot even do it in a least fixed point logic in fact what is IFP plus counting, right? Yeah, yeah. So, two-colourabilities and non-two-colourabilities is very special, in fact this is, that's where we draw the line. Here is my absolutely favorite data log program, is the path systems query. Who has seen this before? Somebody, Anous has seen this before. So, back in 1974, Steve Cook wrote a four-page paper called on a space-time trade-off this paper saw that there exist problems which are complete for polynomial time via log space reduction. So, Cook not only gave us NP completeness, he also gave us p-time completeness. And the problem that he used to show that is complete for p-time is exactly the problem computed by this data log program. Cook did not know that the log data log was not around at the time, okay? But Cook was always thinking in terms of automated theorem proving. So, to get a feeling about what this program is trying to do, think of a proof system that has two parts. It has a set of axioms, that's A, and it has a eternally rule of inference. So, think R, X, Y, Z, meaning that X is inferred from Y and Z using the ruler. For instance, something like modus ponens, right? Something like modus ponens, if I have phi and phi implies psi, I can get psi. I can think of this as being a eternally rule of inference that says, I get psi from phi and phi implies psi, right? Resolution has the same character. So, this program, if you have this interpretation, gives you the theorems of the system. Tells you that X is a theorem if it is an axiom or you can get it from two other theorems using this rule of inference. So, a Cook proved that computing, evaluating this datalog program is a pre-complete problem. Okay, now, what do I mean with this? As a decision problem, meaning if I give you A and R and some value B and I ask you, is B in T, right? This is a pre-complete problem. So, datalog can express pre-complete problems. I mean, that's the bottom line. Datalog can express pre-complete problems. Okay, and in particular, this shows you that datalog evaluation is not going to be in log space, right? Because it can do pre-complete problems. So, in some sense, even the data complexity is higher. It's still in time but higher than the log space that we had before, which goes back to the remark that we had earlier. Very quickly, what is linear datalog? Linear datalog is what you get is the fragment of datalog in which in every rule you have at most one recursive predicate. At most one. So, you can write cousin from sibling. So, if you have a parent, you are given a parent, you define sibling as having one parent in common, and then you define cousin this way. And so, there are some very amusing things. So, when we had the election in the US in 2008, they found out that Barack Obama is an eighth cousin of Dick Cheney. You can't think of two more different people than that. And the link is life. I checked it last night. It's correct. It's still there. And if you think that this is not good enough, here is another one. Sarah Palin and Prince Diana are tenth cousins. So, this is really also you shouldn't put bounds on it. You should just let datalog run until you discover all these things. Anyway, the story of linear datalog is that it's very interesting. A datalog program is linearizable if it's equivalent to a linear program. For instance, the transitive closure divide and conquer is linearizable because equivalent to this. On the other hand, the program for the path systems query-cooks program, if you will, is not linearizable, is not linearizable. This requires some proof. Of course, from complexity reasons, you can argue it shouldn't be because it's easy to see that every linearizable program is in NC. So, you would hear that, but actually you can prove it. By the way, telling if a problem, if a datalog program is linearizable, is undecidable. Subsequent versions of SQL 99, subsequent versions support linear datalog. A linear datalog program is a program in which on every rule, the right-hand side has only one recursive predicate. So, here, parent is given to us, the recursive predicates are sibling and cousin. The second rule has only one recursive predicate, sibling. The third rule has only one recursive predicate, which is cousin. So, that's a linear program. This is not linear because the right-hand side has two occurrences of the recursive predicate. On the other hand, it's equivalent to a linear one. But the second one is not linear, but it's not linear item. Is that clear now? So, that's what SQL supports. Supports only linear datalog programs. I think so. It relates more to the fact that when it's linear, you can implement on a stack as opposed to getting a tree. You can do recursion, you can tree. They were driven. I don't think that the standards people knew anything about the theory about time-complete problems and anything like that. They were just driven by how easy it is to implement linear. So, you can write, this is the syntax I got done. I'm running late, I don't want to explain it more, but I mean, that's how it is. Let me, I'm almost running out of time. Let's take a look and try to tie this up with some other. Let's compare datalog with calculus. So, units of conjunctive queries are contained in datalog, but calculus is not contained in datalog. Datalog cannot do all of calculus. For instance, the reason is simply because we have only allowed monotone operators. We cannot express even the quotient operation, for instance, okay? We cannot express difference, we cannot express the quotient. On the other hand, datalog is not contained in calculus because we have a trans-declosure. So, here is datalog and here is first order logical calculus. Certainly, what we have here are the units of conjunctive queries. The question is what else is there? And the answer is nothing else, and we owe this to Ben Rosemann as a corollary to Rosemann's theorem, the preservation under homomorphism, is that datalog intersect with rational calculus is precisely the units of conjunctive queries. Why is that? Because if you have a datalog query which is also expressible in rational calculus, then in effect you have a first order query which is preserved under homomorphism. Therefore, it's equivalent to a union of conjunctive queries. So, in terms of expressive power, this intersection is precisely the units of conjunctive queries. That's exactly what this intersection is. It's a nice way, that's something that we really didn't know until actually we knew it another way, which I'll show you now, but it's also a very simple corollary to Ben's wonderful theorem. Here is another theorem that we can get very easily from what we saw here together with Ben's theorem. Back in 1987, Άι Τάι and Γουρεύιτς had a paper in Fox where they proved this theorem with a highly nontrivial proof and essentially they used bounded tree width and all sorts of other things. They said the following statements are equivalent for a datalog program pi. Pi is bounded. Bounded means that there is a fixed number k such that on every database you only need to iterate this program k times. In some sense they tell you recursion is not needed. It tells you that this happens if and only if the query is defined, the query defined by pi is expressible in first order logic. Notice this is a very strong statement because it's a statement about the syntax itself. It doesn't say that if the query is expressible in first order logic, then there is another datalog program that does that. This is the program itself is bounded. Now, one of the two directions is obvious is if pi is bounded, then basically it's a union of conjunctive queries. You go up to k iteration. So the interesting direction is two implies one. I can give you now a proof that fits in one slide. We're going to use Rosman's theorem, the two implies one. If Q is first order definable, since it's preserved under homomorphism, it's equivalent to a finite union of conjunctive queries. So look what we have now. On the right, we have the finite union of conjunctive queries given by Rosman's theorem. On the left, we have the infinite union of conjunctive queries that we get from the datalog program. Now we can use the Sagivian Akakis theorem that I showed you before. But if you have two unions of conjunctive queries, then every member of the one, one contain the other, and every member of the left containing the other. So if you apply the Sagivian Akakis, it follows that this infinite union on the left must collapse to a finite piece of it because it's equal to a finite piece on the right, each of which contained on the left. So the infinite union collapses to a finite piece, but that's exactly what it means for the program to be bounded. So we get a very easy proof of the I.T.Gurevitz theorem using Ben's result. There are extensions of datalog with inequality that can be looked at. I'm not going to talk about this. Datalog with negation in the bytes of the rules. Oh my God, this area was worked great depth in the 80s and the 90s. There still were going on. You have to come up with the right semantics. There is stratified semantics, well-founded semantics, alternating fixed point semantics, stable model semantics. This is still goes on. The chapter 15 of the Abitabool Hall-Vianu book has a nice introduction to this. I want to finish with going back. So we have explained datalog, we understand its expressive power. We have seen there in some detail the queer evaluation program, problem for datalog. What about equivalence and containment? Well, there is bad news here. The bad news is that Odets Mouelli in 1987, in the POTS conference, which as I told you was my first POTS conference, showed that the queer equivalence problem for datalog queries is undecidable. In fact, it's undecidable even for datalog queries with a single recursive predicate. And since equivalence and decidable containment is also undecidable. The proof is very interesting because it uses another technique but it hasn't been discussed before. It is a reduction from the context-free grammar equivalence. It's a classical problem in language theory. You are given two context-free grammars and you have to define the same language that's undecidable. And he gave a reduction of this problem to the datalog containment. So the picture I want to leave you with, and this is essentially the last slide, is we've gone, we started with calculus, we dropped to conjunctive queries. We can go to units of conjunctive queries and not get anything worse. The power of recursion is, this is the price we pay for using conjunctive queries. The combined complexity suits up to exponential time complete. The data complexity is P complete, equivalence and containment become undecidable. So what I hope to have done here is to just give you a sense in which Victor Viano was very much justified in saying that database theory and finite model theory have a lot in common. Finite model theory is the backbone of finite, of database theory, but also database provided concrete scenario of finite model theory. I mentioned yesterday that to me also it's a case of logic from computer science. I mean, datalog is a case of logic from computer science. So thank you very much for your attention.


And he he treated his own meme. He said one game. No sleeves. Oh, that's weird I got a test of all of a sudden any day you got tested one test a year Yeah, there is like if you just if you fail that it's more like an IQ test They say I think everyone else who was in a position to know was just turning a blind eye because it was super beneficial for the sport Yeah, so and so it works out eight times a day for seven hours and it's just just build muscle every hour Yeah, yeah That's a boys topic thunder soon to be maybe thick and creamy episodes on the way to we're thinking about a food show I'm gonna bring that special drink that I'm not gonna talk. I know we got to line them up and get a rock in a roll Wait, what kind of special? Yeah, it looks It looks us. No, it looks disgusting We're back again new topics be sure to give a subscription thumbs up share this with your friends Dean Sidorff's cap and a kilo's the one and only Jim McD 3sp.co and Kevlar Kai the sickest FPS player this side of the Mississippi If you don't know FPS Google, yeah, you use his aim bot. Oh, he does. He's a cheater. He's a cheater I do treat topic. We were actually just talking about over here pre recording. That's popped in my mind is In our niche of fitness powerlifting bodybuilding CrossFit's actually a hot topic right now. They were talking about steroid use in the games and how that just kind of gets shuffled under the rug by the organization which I've said for years But in our sports in our niche of YouTube, etc. Steroids, I feel like have gotten More accepted people just kind of whether they turn an eye whether we want to talk about legitimacy in a sport Morals of it or just general view on the thing But you talk about real sports and you talk about baseball football basketball, whatever and sorry powerlifters Not a real sport. It's a hobby. Yeah, you guys kind of matter organized hobby And then it's still noted as like the devil, right?   How many I bet you the large percentage of steroids use as used by the average gym, bro That's trying to get chicks or just trying to look better read it in a magazine. Why is there such a separated? View or moral on steroids from topic to topic like that makes no sense to me, right? Like if someone does cocaine whether it's it's Tom Cruise Michael Jordan or one of us. It's all kind of be like, that's not so cool. Oh, yeah, my buddy. He does coke Yeah, yeah, like it's all kind of like okay. Yeah, I was thinking I think it looks a little bit negative regardless of who it is Oh, I don't I mean it depends. I don't know I depends where you are maybe that's just me then too But drug drugs for me regularly like recreational drugs or hard drugs for me It looks the same no matter how does it right Michael Jordan's on heroin Tom Cruise is on heroin Dean does heroin You're like, no, that's pretty lame at least what I think yeah, but steroids depending on who does it? the view is so different is it because of the potential like Advantage physical advantage in sport you want it to be like and you want to see an even playing field when it's just someone doing it Recreationally it just doesn't matter as much. Maybe I think there's such an emotional attachment on the sports side of it Like it's I don't know why I mean I could see why yeah I could see why like mark wire and like, you know all that stuff and then whoever came out the book I forget always about go book. I'm at the game of shadows that was it. Yeah. Yeah that Exactly, I want to file a dispute on this whole thing right here because I don't think that people care about steroids and football I don't think that people care at all. I think it's probably less Brought up. I think they care. I think it's it's people don't know I think we all know things and football has to be the most used steroids probably there is right But I bet you but I don't think Jen pop knows that yeah But you can get you can pop for weed and NFL like they're pretty strict on everything But there's only like one test a year. Isn't there? Yeah, I don't know I don't know you get tested regularly like randomly picked really like yeah If they look at you and they're like a like that was the joke this week Miles Garrett Defensive end for the Cleveland Browns.  Oh, that's weird I got a test tomorrow all of a sudden any day you know test it No, because it does work like that Justin baseball had a buddy like he was a pitcher and he just gained a lot of size over the off season He just got huge he learned how to lift and like something that and they came in literally first day they go Justin He's like yeah, it's like come back here. We literally have a test like on the spot. It's not like like oh sweet Yeah, man, like I got glad to see you. Okay. Maybe this could help us out You know like no, it's like no no no you you're about the pop. We know you are I thought with See this is more, you know, I don't really know the truth here But I thought always football was like there was just like saying that goes around that, you know They got one test a year. Yeah, there is like if you just if you fail that it's more like an IQ test They say right you know that what day the test is before the season starts like everybody's kind of gets cleaned around then Then it's kind of fair game. I do I don't know that the intricacies of testing in any pro sport And I don't know if any of us do is to Kyle obviously has a good experience baseball wise But until you're in the locker room, right? Like who knows what's going on with the Cleveland Browns and who's do the testing Who's not doing the testing, right? Yeah, but I do think football has I don't know if the right terms and advantage But lifting has always been tied to football forever, right? And same thing with power clean Steroids are tied to lifting and so I know firsthand a lot of buddies I played high school football And they were very decent and so they hopped on steroids to get just above decent And so that culture is a part of it I think and maybe that spread but I think Jim I think we're just too in the niche that we all kind of know or assume that something's going on the football because your Body can't look that way and take that kind of beating and feel good But I don't know if Gen pop does I don't know because that's that's what we were with baseball though Yeah, you know back in the back in the home run sort of derby era there where where everyone was chasing records In McGuire sosa and then Barry Bonds. I think that people were I think Jen Pop was naive and I think that Yeah, I think everyone else who was in a position to know was just turning a blind eye because it was super beneficial for the sport Well, I think most popular sports probably ever been Yeah, I think you say similar thing for CrossFit if you've been in fitness and powerlifting in bodybuilding Just feel a little dirtier than CrossFit and a lot of people that almost expected a lot of people found lifting through CrossFit So it's their first introduction to the barbell where if you're in this nitty gritty of lifting We've always kind of said like yeah, man like what they put their body through and how they look for the amount of a aerobic Exercise they're doing you can't keep that amount of muscle It's just not possible for a lot of these athletes that I've seen like it's literally physiologically not possible So we knew but people in the CrossFit community probably didn't oh, no, no, they were watching like oh, they're on TNT today Yeah, so and so see yeah, so and so it works out for eight times a day for seven hours in this Just just every hour. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah eats eats only fucking pistachios and kale chicken Like that it's so but for us and I think and it feels kind of like that but different where we just have niches But I still don't understand Why things are accepted sometimes, but they're not accepted others It's a good cuz it's not cheating cuz it's against the rules and everything you do, but you know besides Some powerlifting Feds I think don't even mention it But even IFBB which is the high-level bodybuilders which are clearly taking some kind of performance enhancing drugs on their website It says they drug test.   Is that what you're saying? No, I think Jim's saying that that that Warmed up the pool for everybody to hop in yeah kind of oh, oh cuz when did they start sponsoring them? I Think it was about three years ago that it was a big push all the time.  I mean TRT is somewhat. I mean it's not new but it kind of is new No, it's way more common now. Yeah talked about. Yeah, it's also weird to that. It used to be It used to be advertised to women Not testosterone obviously, but like a hormone there. Yeah. Yeah.  It's also just like it's just the playing field is pretty much a high percentage are using yeah So it's like is it really cheating? No, not really because everybody else is doing it's almost like But then there's the guys that don't want to do it them They have maybe like the morals that don't want to do it Yeah, and they kind of you know fall to waste it, but then again like that's kind of on them Well, I look at it when then you throw politics and business on that whole thing And that's the big argument against arguably the UFC and definitely CrossFit where they're they do internal testing It's maybe they hire like an independent lab to actually look over the substance But they don't have a third you saw that it's not a third party coming in doing that And then if you've seen Icarus, which we did a podcast on you know that you saw that is Arguably you could be corrupt too for all we know right because there's so much politics involved I think you have see uses water. I think they use water but that's pretty that's pretty new I don't know what last like five years, right? I think they use water protocols which CrossFit says as well I don't think they do water the same thing is using a lot of labs Yeah, no, I don't and reporting the results internationally I don't think the world Anti-doping agency has anything to do with the UFC Well the body type in like as we're talking about UFC like the body type that you see in the UFC now is Nothing like it was in like 2004 2007 a little Vita or Belfort. Oh, dude. What's that all-star? Alstair Albert love him to do the like the Chuck Liddell. What was the guy you'd always fight all the time? That was just juice out of his mind. Yeah To door tease. Yeah, I mean come on that guy's a walking. We're like Chelsea on it now He was pretty jacked, but I don't know if he was on anything. It's also argue because yeah by way class, right? Like jail fought at like 175. I think you just took care of himself to be honest possible But then you get the stuff where like now these people are and these athletes are all taking TRT that's prescribed And then it's okay all of a sudden because of like this like script that they have now, right? Yeah, or it's like anybody that's over a certain age that qualifies is probably taking it That's precious because they're allowed to yeah, it's like so what like what are we doing here? Right? Well, and then I understand the political and business side, right? Like are you gonna knock your best guy who's selling the most tickets selling the most jerseys? And you say hey man You can't you can't fight or you can't throw or you can't use a barbell for for five years because you broke the rules But there goes my business. Yeah, the argument I hate the most is like they should let all the players in the NFL They'll be used whatever steroids they can have fill them with whatever I want to see how far that ball can go and they're like They're half serious have joking but like they're like, yeah I like they believe the down like yeah, okay, let them all take as many steroids boss I'm like if we go deep into that I agree if we could make it federally legal so we could study it to a precise tea Certain things or you have a doctor.  That's yeah, that's a whole other thing He was like why is CTE not talked about in UFC where your whole entire goal is to give someone a concussion? Yeah, but in football. It's like this like big. Yeah underlying problem But he's just not even talked about in boxing. Yeah, what is being knocked out? Brain is rattling That's brain damage. That's how you that's how you get CTE Yeah, but they're like this whole sport is like dedicated to doing them through each other. Don't do steroids kids