Re: And they say C is obscure

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: And they say C is obscure
Date	2017-06-06 12:44 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87fufduyr6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(16 earlier) <79739d7e-fc24-4d06-9bfa-8d9db0647f16@googlegroups.com> <87y3t6ujsy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <af8fdc8b-51ed-4458-ab76-952503e8ebb8@googlegroups.com> <oh5rc9$6nq$1@dont-email.me> <466698bd-b99b-4ce6-ac3d-d8ba14087ecc@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 06/06/17 10:15, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> 
>> It does not matter if you are thinking mathematically, or
>> psychologically - if X is a kind of Y, then X has the features of Y.
>> But that does not mean X and Y are interchangeable!
>> 
> But we can toggle between a nesting and a multi-dimensional view of
> an array. It's either an array of arrays of arrays ... (how many "arrays" 
> are allowed before you resort to counting them?) or it's a cube 
> with each sub-cube representing a data item (how many dimensions
> can you visualise before this becomes difficult?).

But you are hoping to make the leap to nesting like this:

 (()()(()())(())()(()))(())())

Your evidence (or reasoning) must link 3-dimensional space, indexing of
arrays and nesting of parentheses.

It's not helped by multiple claims (some thing are impossible, some at a
glance, which is it today?) nor by failing to track all exceptions
you've acknowledged.  The result is that no one but you even knows
what's being claimed at any one time.

>> As Ben says, there is probably not much point in continuing.  Watching
>> your frantic back-peddling and attempts to re-write the twaddle you
>> posted is entertaining for a bit, but not very constructive.
>>
> Pure arrogance. Ben's an academic thus notorious for being catty,
> but you don't even have that excuse.

I am fine with you calling me catty, but to make sweeping claims about a
whole profession is petty and patently absurd.

> In mathematics, if we know A is in B, that tells us nothing about B other 
> than the A subset. In science, "as in E. coli, so in elephant".

What do you hope to convey by this vague wording?  If you want to say
that the perception of nesting and the perception of 3D space share the
same sort of relationship as E. coli and elephants?  I'm happy to accept
that as a starting point.

-- 
Ben.

Thread

Re: And they say C is obscure "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 16:03 -0400
  Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 02:21 -0700
    Re: And they say C is obscure "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 20:55 -0400
      Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 01:44 -0700
        Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-05 09:47 +0000
          Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 03:51 -0700
            Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 15:43 +0100
              Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-05 13:51 -0700
              Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:26 +0000
      Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 11:59 +0100
        Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 04:12 -0700
          Re: And they say C is obscure asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 05:54 -0700
          Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 15:03 +0100
            Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:22 -0700
              Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 16:22 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:40 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 16:41 +0200
              Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 15:44 +0100
              Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 16:12 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:08 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 12:08 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 13:10 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-05 23:54 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 01:15 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 11:10 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:39 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 12:15 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 03:47 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 13:09 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 05:26 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:25 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 05:34 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:41 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 15:04 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:37 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-07 10:17 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-06 08:49 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:17 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 19:16 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-06 12:44 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:34 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-06 21:14 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-06 13:10 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:34 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-06-06 15:27 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-06-11 16:06 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-06-06 12:10 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 04:36 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-06-06 17:32 +0000
              Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-06-05 17:58 +0200

csiph-web