Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.026 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.95; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.02; 'programmer': 0.03; 'say,': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'purpose.': 0.07; 'indication': 0.09; 'oop': 0.09; 'typed': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; '(true)': 0.16; 'dictionaries': 0.16; 'did.': 0.16; 'mean,': 0.16; 'reflects': 0.16; 'sat,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; "python's": 0.19; 'appears': 0.22; 'email addr:gmail.com>': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; '(or': 0.24; 'question': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'define': 0.26; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'idea': 0.28; 'point': 0.28; 'points': 0.29; 'words': 0.29; "doesn't": 0.30; 'is?': 0.30; 'originally': 0.30; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; 'url:mailman': 0.30; 'mirror': 0.31; 'url:python': 0.33; 'guess': 0.33; 'not.': 0.33; 'programmers': 0.33; 'moment': 0.34; 'core': 0.34; 'could': 0.34; 'basic': 0.35; 'possible.': 0.35; 'definition': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'data,': 0.36; 'programming,': 0.36; 'url:listinfo': 0.36; 'thanks': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'hi,': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'example,': 0.37; 'so,': 0.37; 'level': 0.37; 'expressed': 0.37; 'starting': 0.37; 'skip:& 10': 0.38; 'feed': 0.38; 'whatever': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'that,': 0.38; 'expect': 0.39; 'skip:& 20': 0.39; 'environment.': 0.39; 'url:mail': 0.40; 'expression': 0.60; 'most': 0.60; 'black': 0.61; 'back': 0.62; 'making': 0.63; 'myself': 0.63; 'become': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'to:addr:gmail.com': 0.65; 'between': 0.67; 'subject': 0.69; 'legal': 0.71; 'lowest': 0.74; 'beside': 0.84; 'existence.': 0.84; 'mirrors': 0.84; 'joel': 0.91; 'reside': 0.91; 'picture': 0.97; 'economic': 0.98; '2013': 0.98 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8rMdiyCHMKpli05W1VTbbOgRrwEmJuogIvlNTTx8Kr0=; b=nSv3DW2CklWCLw17BDjk6NrHM3SBHqPxTiBIp3yKZ2wbDt9ituN86OOnb0i+cTs9TB g9oWBwz2ZuEGLiY8VEXOG+itSeSV6bMVz+WCAQZ/dyax0lwrD3dzsKM0B+EnXV4thX/I uXxGXzw29yD4bMN7rQ/2ueUOwaSA4ZpP66b72FabkfnyJXXHkqFckjr/y9KXJ7gE2qFs xLlTfJLINO02wGVtB8ny23RJoi4IbVggnH1vGqcY2DzEJMkuuJ7XKP0wib3Z18PLjWur M5cJglrjNqC71uzTV/sQOMASRPY1HYQ7U3YH4b1Km1jVsVrKJHD4YBYCdOSaecJhODLL Xakg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.54.101 with SMTP id i5mr15121933vep.43.1368328459422; Sat, 11 May 2013 20:14:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 23:14:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Python for philosophers From: Joel Goldstick To: Citizen Kant Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a020ec2c20704dc7ccb0a Cc: "python-list@python.org" X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 103 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1368328468 news.xs4all.nl 15904 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:34350 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:45173 --089e013a020ec2c20704dc7ccb0a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote: > Hi, > this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original > purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. My guess is that you don't want to be a programmer. Otherwise you would know that you did. > At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to > Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of > view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an > "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication > about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in > the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about > Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity > it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result > one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I > roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic > mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer types > on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, > but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for > example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears > between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but > expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the > apostrophes). > > So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that > mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the > most shortened expression of that data? > > Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that > programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the > lowest level of it's existence. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > > -- Joel Goldstick http://joelgoldstick.com --089e013a020ec2c20704dc7ccb0a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant <= ;citizenkant@gma= il.com> wrote:
Hi,
this could be seen as an extravagant = subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I wa= nt to become a programmer or not.

My guess is that you don't want to be a programmer.= =C2=A0 Otherwise you would know that you did.
=C2=A0
At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my = way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or poin= t of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as= an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein'= ;s indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on di= ctionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I mak= e to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Pyth= on as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single a= nd most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it di= rectly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be = considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirror= s the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as th= e programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way po= ssible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python= reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mi= rror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possi= ble (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity t= hat mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back= the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong.= I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on= Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it= 9;s existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list




--
Joel Goldstick
http://joelgoldstick.com
--089e013a020ec2c20704dc7ccb0a--