Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #104926

Re: Simple exercise

Show all headers | View raw

Steven D'Aprano writes:

> On Tuesday 15 March 2016 16:26, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>> 
>>> Unfortunate or not, it seems to be quite common that "zip"
>>> (convolution) discards items when sequences are of different lengths.
>> 
>> Citation needed. Where is zip called convolution?
>
> Wikipedia :-)
>
> Unfortunately "convolution" is one of those technical terms with many
> related but slightly different meanings. It's used in calculus, signal
> processing, geology, biology, probability theory, formal languages,
> and more. I don't have a citation for it being used in functional
> programming, but is it so hard to believe? A "convolution" is usually
> described as something being folded over another thing, which sounds
> rather like zip, doesn't it?

I'm asking precisely because the term "convolution" already has more
interesting uses that I find somewhat non-trivial, and I don't see zip
being one of those.

> Take two pieces of paper, say one white and one black, one on top of the 
> other, and fold them in half, then in half again, then again:
>
> zero folds = W B
>
> one fold = W B B W
>
> two folds = W B B W W B B W
>
>
> which is not that far from what zip would give you:
>
> W B W B W B W B ...

Seems different to me.

> I don't know enough about the lambda calculus and other theoretical computer 
> science topics to give a definitive citation for "zip" being a convolution, 
> but I do know enough to accept it as plausible.

Perhaps someone else can provide citations. At the moment, I think the
idea is both new and bad.

>> Why should zip be called convolution?
>
> Why should anything be called anything?
>
> Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that the zip function be renamed.

I'm not worried about "zip". I'm worried about "convolution". It's
confusing to adopt an existing term for a different purpose.

>>> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_%28computer_science%29
>> 
>> "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by
>> verifying the claims made and adding inline citations."
>
> Meh, there are Wikipedia editors that seem to flag just about every article 
> with that. You could write "water is wet" and technically that's "original 
> research" that needs a citation. It is so over-used that it is practically 
> meaningless.

In this case, it seems accurate to me. The article makes a factual claim
that the term is actually used this way in computer science, with no
evidence to back it up. I doubt it. I failed to find evidence myself.

Anyone?

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Simple exercise Rodrick Brown <rodrick.brown@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 04:02 -0500
  Re: Simple exercise Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-10 11:30 +0100
    Re: Simple exercise Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-10 12:07 +0100
    Re: Simple exercise Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-10 17:05 +0100
      Re: Simple exercise Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-10 17:08 +0100
  Re: Simple exercise Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-03-11 12:24 +1300
    Re: Simple exercise Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 10:38 +1100
  Re: Simple exercise BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-11 00:05 +0000
    Re: Simple exercise Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-11 01:21 +0000
      Re: Simple exercise BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-11 01:45 +0000
        Re: Simple exercise Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 20:53 -0500
        Re: Simple exercise "Martin A. Brown" <martin@linux-ip.net> - 2016-03-10 17:56 -0800
        Re: Simple exercise Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-11 02:03 +0000
          Re: Simple exercise BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-11 02:18 +0000
          Re: Simple exercise Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:35 -0700
            Re: Simple exercise Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:06 +0000
              Re: Simple exercise Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:00 -0700
              Re: Simple exercise Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 10:59 +1100
                Re: Simple exercise Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-15 07:26 +0200
                Re: Simple exercise Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 19:39 +1100
                Re: Simple exercise Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:53 +1100
                Re: Simple exercise Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-15 11:04 +0200
                Re: Simple exercise Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:09 +0000
            Re: Simple exercise Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:16 -0600
              Re: Simple exercise Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:11 -0700
            Re: Simple exercise Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 15:23 +0000
            Re: Simple exercise Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2016-03-14 17:00 +0100
        Re: Simple exercise Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-11 02:05 +0000
      Re: Simple exercise Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:07 -0700
        Re: Simple exercise Larry Martell <larry.martell@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:13 -0400
        Re: Simple exercise alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-14 14:18 +0000
          Re: Simple exercise Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:22 -0700
            Re: Simple exercise MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-03-14 15:57 +0000
    Re: Simple exercise Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2016-03-10 18:14 -0800
  Re: Simple exercise boffi <boffi@casa.sua> - 2016-03-17 22:28 +0100

csiph-web