Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!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 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'algorithm': 0.03; 'attribute': 0.05; 'model,': 0.05; '(using': 0.07; 'attributes': 0.07; 'executed': 0.07; 'objects,': 0.07; '[1]:': 0.09; '[2]:': 0.09; '[3]:': 0.09; 'correct,': 0.09; 'curve': 0.09; 'happen.': 0.09; 'itself,': 0.09; 'objects.': 0.09; 'propagate': 0.09; 'special,': 0.09; 'structure,': 0.09; 'to:addr:comp.lang.python': 0.09; 'utilizing': 0.09; 'yeah,': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.10; 'itself.': 0.11; 'language': 0.14; '"human': 0.16; '(class': 0.16; 'articulating': 0.16; 'beaten': 0.16; 'computing)': 0.16; 'cowboys': 0.16; 'eternal': 0.16; 'hack,': 0.16; 'hmm.': 0.16; 'hollow': 0.16; 'in-place': 0.16; 'logistical': 0.16; 'naive': 0.16; 'paradigm.': 0.16; 'paradigms': 0.16; 'references:': 0.16; 'suggesting': 0.16; 'superfluous': 0.16; 'transforming': 0.16; 'wing': 0.16; 'worst': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'shape': 0.17; 'creates': 0.18; '(or': 0.18; 'sort': 0.21; 'trying': 0.21; 'environments': 0.22; 'features,': 0.22; 'defined': 0.22; 'example': 0.23; 'bird': 0.23; 'monday,': 0.23; 'seems': 0.23; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'idea': 0.24; 'second': 0.24; 'feature': 0.24; 'cc:2**1': 0.24; 'machine': 0.24; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.25; 'header :User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'creating': 0.26; 'skip:" 20': 0.26; 'cc:addr:gmail.com': 0.27; 'prevent': 0.27; 'realize': 0.27; 'rules': 0.27; 'question': 0.27; 'possible,': 0.27; 'ride': 0.27; 'see,': 0.27; 'structures': 0.27; 'technology.': 0.27; 'fine': 0.28; 'initial': 0.28; 'represent': 0.28; 'trouble': 0.28; 'arithmetic': 0.29; 'attempted': 0.29; 'chairs': 0.29; 'oop': 0.29; 'steps:': 0.29; 'types.': 0.29; 'unified': 0.29; 'objects': 0.29; 'probably': 0.29; "i'm": 0.29; "we're": 0.30; 'becomes': 0.30; 'basic': 0.30; 'sense': 0.31; '(and': 0.32; 'computing': 0.32; 'suggestion': 0.32; 'could': 0.32; '11,': 0.33; 'achieving': 0.33; "aren't": 0.33; 'highway': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'operations': 0.33; 'themselves': 0.33; 'another': 0.33; 'life': 0.66; 'today': 0.67; 'believe': 0.69; 'today.': 0.69; 'direct': 0.69; 'benefit': 0.70; 'wish': 0.70; 'audience': 0.71; 'combining': 0.71; 'lack': 0.71; 'overcome': 0.71; 'sweet': 0.71; 'attention': 0.75; '100': 0.78; 'directly.': 0.78; 'gain': 0.79; 'friends': 0.83; '"intelligent': 0.84; '2013': 0.84; 'all!': 0.84; 'borrow': 0.84; 'cognitive': 0.84; 'complexity': 0.84; 'dream.': 0.84; 'fat': 0.84; 'fly,': 0.84; 'haunt': 0.84; 'himself,': 0.84; 'hitch': 0.84; 'imagination': 0.84; 'indirect': 0.84; 'moral': 0.84; 'racing': 0.84; 'resulted': 0.84; 'true!': 0.84; 'universe': 0.84; 'bounce': 0.91; 'come,': 0.91; 'besides,': 0.93; 'dreams': 0.93; 'imagine': 0.96 X-Received: by 10.49.39.99 with SMTP id o3mr1278025qek.14.1360701997244; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:46:37 -0800 (PST) Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:46:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.196.110.134; posting-account=h3aEwQoAAACiuqX-oR3gvCVFm8lLHoWj References: <680e50a4-6569-49cf-b369-0be450545d50@googlegroups.com> <5115c455$0$6574$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <511784b3$0$29988$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <6b7d7299-7ce3-401f-a950-04cea18af399@googlegroups.com> <51183d05$0$29992$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <889bd20d-12b8-48f2-821a-b91726197515@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-IP: 70.196.110.134 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: LangWart: Method congestion from mutate multiplicty From: Rick Johnson To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: python-list@python.org, Rick Johnson 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: , Message-ID: Lines: 138 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1360702759 news.xs4all.nl 6849 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:54917 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:38785 On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:28:57 PM UTC-6, zipher wrote: > [...] > Yeah, this is where one has to consider the idea of a unified data > model (a sort of OOPv2). Right now, it's all confused because people > are using their own internal, subconscious ideas of data. Indeed!=20 The current paradigms lack concrete structures which will prevent these eve= r-long bickering over minutiae. Our current paradigms are actually self-def= eating because they allow too much "interpretation" of what is correct, and= what is incorrect. It's like the early pioneer days, cowboys everywhere. W= e need Wyatt Earp! > There are > natural ways of working with data that ***actually map onto the world > we all share*** and there are other ways which are purely abstract and > not-pragmatic however "pure". (Apart from this, there is the > ultra-concrete data model, like C, which only maps onto the machine > architecture). This is where pretty much every computer language is > today. >=20 > What I'm suggesting I think is somewhat novel. The first version of > OOP was too concrete in the sense that it was actually trying to make > real-world objects in the machine (class Chevy(Car):). This is > ridiculous. There needs to be a refactor of the OOP paradigm. In > practice OOP never was used to represent real-world objects. It came > to model virtual world objects, a very different world with different > relationships. It became the evolution of the data type itself. > The > unified object model needs to do for OOP what arithmetic did for > number: defined a very basic and general set of operations on the > concept of "quantificiation". But here were trying to do that not for > quantification but for structures. Most people in the this group would probably consider this to be a fantasti= cal idea. But aren't ALL great ideas fantastical? >From as long as man has existed he has wanted to fly like a bird -- whether= his wish was based on logistical expeditiously or simply a primitive egoti= stical rebelliousness to overcome the limits of his own physiology. It's no surprise that the initial attempts were naive at best and resulted = in total embarrassment. When he attempted to borrow some "flight attributes= " of his feathered friends by "taring-and-feathering" himself, he did /look= / like a bird, however, when he executed the "perfect 10" swan-dive from hi= s second story cave dwelling, only to bounce his face off the granite welco= me mat, he was reminded by his audience of the one bird-like feature he alr= eady had... his brain! You see, early man wanted to fly, and knew /somehow/ it was possible, howev= er, his folly was to attempt flight by borrowing attributes of the bird /di= rectly/. In reality, even if could borrow /every/ flight specific attribute= of the bird: light weight frame from hollow bones, large lung capacity, ae= rodynamic body shape and wing structure, features, etc. He would then be /h= imself/ a bird, and NOT a /human/ flying. Besides, a human changing into a = bird is impossible... or is it?[3] [Warning: Slight tangent curve ahead!] I think a lot of the failure of achieving flight "hinged" around the superf= luous complexity of articulated wings-- of which is something that we have = trouble replicating even today with our advancements in mechanical, hydraul= ic, and computing technology. But articulating wings are another fine examp= le of how "intelligent design" will always beat the pants off "evolution". = The simple technology of combining "fixed wings" with "brute force propulsi= on" can overcome the complex design of articulating wings and gain maintain= ability in the process. It seems the bird should have developed a squid-lik= e air propulsion emanating from his anus instead of articulating wings and = large breast muscles; But i digress! RR: "A billion years worth of "dice rolling" is no replacement one human im= agination! Evolution, you have created your replacement; prepare for your d= eprecation!" [Back to the beaten path!] What early man failed to realize is that he should create a model of the bi= rd, and then hitch a ride on the model! This is an example if utilizing an = /indirect/ approach to solving the problem of "human flight". However, it is still possible to solve the problem directly. Although this = direct approach involves man manipulating atomic structures (using nano-tec= hnology) and then transforming cognitive state from one entity into another= entity (or in-place if we're really good![1]); AKA: "Shapeshifting" But some rules require too much time to hack, so while the brute algorthim = is chewing away for the next 100 years, we need to follow these steps: 0. Start the brute force algorithm (study nano-tech, computing) 1. in the short term use the indirect approach (aeroplane) 2. until the direct approach becomes attainable (shapeshifting) > My suggestion is to create the "fractal graph" data type to end (and > represent) all data types. (Keep all the special, high-speed matrix > ideas in SciPi/VPython.) But generally, re-arrange the data model > around the fractal graph for efficiency and start watching the magic > happen. This is interesting. I would love to learn more about your ideas in this di= rection. Do you have any writings on the subject matter? =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D REFERENCES: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [1]: because creating a temporary entity and then destroying it could have = some moral concerns at worst and possible loss of government funding[2] at = best. [2]: Of course that depends on how moral the government in question is. [3]: I don't believe anything is impossible. If a human mind can imagine so= mething, that something can be made reality; IF the human (or descendants) = are willing to invest the time required to achieve the dream.=20 It is our very imagination that creates the future. If you want Distopia, t= hen just keep reading/writing/evangelizing about it, and if enough people a= ccept it, it will be true! If you want utopia, well then forget about it! T= he universe will not allow such abominations! Utopian environments do not propagate struggles that are life threatening; = heck they probably don't contain any struggles at all! Just a bunch of fat = a$$es racing around on motorized chairs down the highway of slothfulness to= gorge on selfishness at the next "evolutionary dead end" buffet! Only struggles that hang the very life of these lazy lifeforms in the balan= ce will get their attention and force them to play the "war games" of survi= val, which in-turn spins the cogs of evolution to the benefit of, well, of.= ..? Hmm. Who benefits from this eternal struggle?=20 Lifeforms themselves are but pawns in the game /slaved/ to play or die, and= evolution is the game itself, but who benefits? A good question that shoul= d haunt your nightmares for some time to come, sweet dreams folks!