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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #110829 > unrolled thread

Re: And they say C is obscure

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#110829 — Re: And they say C is obscure

In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:03:31 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> 
> > The theory behind the claim was about brain structure and a three
> > dimensional world and that's looking very peaky right now.  I'm stuffed
> > when I try to imagine a four dimensional object, no matter how much
> > symmetry it has.  Even the most symmetrical -- a 4D sphere -- is beyond
> > me.  If these evolved brain structures can be helped to manage four,
> > five or more levels of nesting just by adding a little symmetry, why
> > can't they be so helped for a four- or five-dimensional object?
> > 
> Probably they can.
> You'd have to consider how to construct a 4D array so that you can represent
> int in two dimensions, with a vertical plane of symmetry. Then see if it
> can be "groked" 
> 
> However the 3 levels of nesting / three dimensions of space connection is only
> speculative. You'd have to consider how to test it. Note David Brown (who, we
> confirmed, can only "grok" three levels of parentheses) claimed to be able
> to play 4D noughts and crosses. That's another counter-example, but going
> the opposite way.

Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#110930

On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
> 
> Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
> book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
>
That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 

If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111504

In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
> 
> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
> > 
> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
> > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
> >
> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
> 
> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.

Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.

Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble 
with this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111515

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:55:50 AM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
> malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
> > 
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
> > > 
> > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
> > > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
> > >
> > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
> > book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
> > then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
> > 
> > If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
> 
> Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
> shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.
> 
> Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble 
> with this.
>
You lose track of which items are adjacent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111521

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

> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:55:50 AM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
> > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
> > > > 
> > > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
> > > > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
> > > >
> > > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
> > > book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
> > > then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
> > > 
> > > If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
> > 
> > Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
> > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.
> > 
> > Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble 
> > with this.
> >
> You lose track of which items are adjacent. 

No, _you_ apparently lose track of such things. You should really learn
to believe other people with more experience than you, when they say
that they do not. Your three-level-limit is all entirely in your brain -
_your_ brain, not ours.
Your argument is like that of a man who gets winded walking to the
shops, and then claims that it is impossible for people to run a
marathon, because you get winded walking to the shops.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111531

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:48:29 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>
> > >
> > You lose track of which items are adjacent. 
> 
> No, _you_ apparently lose track of such things. You should really learn
> to believe other people with more experience than you, when they say
> that they do not. Your three-level-limit is all entirely in your brain -
> _your_ brain, not ours.
> Your argument is like that of a man who gets winded walking to the
> shops, and then claims that it is impossible for people to run a
> marathon, because you get winded walking to the shops.
> 
But I'm an expert.
Few people have more experience with C than me. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111549

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

> But I'm an expert.
> Few people have more experience with C than me. 

Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111583

Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes:

> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But I'm an expert.
>> Few people have more experience with C than me.
>
> Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly...

+1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111643

Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > But I'm an expert.
> > Few people have more experience with C than me. 
> 
> Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly...

Dunning and Kruger are having a field day.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111532

"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:

> In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
> malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
>> 
>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
>> > 
>> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
>> > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
>> >
>> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
>> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
>> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
>> 
>> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
>
> Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
> shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.

I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing
dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological)
space.  I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the
neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in
R^7.  I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to
resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7.

When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails
me.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111533

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:27 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
> > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
> >> 
> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
> >> > 
> >> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
> >> > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
> >> >
> >> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
> >> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
> >> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
> >> 
> >> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
> >
> > Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
> > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.
> 
> I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing
> dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological)
> space.  I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the
> neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in
> R^7.  I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to
> resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7.
> 
> When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails
> me.
> 
My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting
and indexing dimensions. (The observation that three is the limit for "grokking"
parentheses doesn't rely on that argument).

For me, the difference is whether the nesting levels are anonymous. As Richard
Heathfield pointed out long ago, anyone can follow the sequence "Universe,
Milky Way galaxy, Solar system, Earth, UK, London, Greenwich, Greenwich
observatory, reception, small desk, third drawer, second file, third page,
fourth line, 16th character. But that's because the nesting levels are tied to
the concrete.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111536

I believe I wrote some equivalent to loop of deep 256 max
yes it is as exponential...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111540

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

> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:27 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, 
>> > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says...
>> >> 
>> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, 
>> >> > book does it for me.  Or row, column, page, file folder.
>> >> >
>> >> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from 
>> >> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester
>> >> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. 
>> >> 
>> >> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
>> >
>> > Why does the visualization "break down"?  You can index across books, 
>> > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine.
>> 
>> I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing
>> dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological)
>> space.  I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the
>> neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in
>> R^7.  I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to
>> resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7.
>> 
>> When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails
>> me.
>> 
> My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting
> and indexing dimensions.

Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't
comment.  Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of
my comment about metrics and topology?

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111542

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:03:08 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting
> > and indexing dimensions.
> 
> Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't
> comment.  Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of
> my comment about metrics and topology?
> 
We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels
of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that
humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D
but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on.

The question is whether that is just a coincidence, like three being the optimal 
tradeoff between visual and efficiency considerations for a windmill turbine,
or whether it's related in some fashion. If we say "it is related" we must say
that nesting and indexing is interchangeable, nesting isn't easier because it
doesn't have a topology such that character 1, line 1, page 1 is adjacent to 
character 1, line1, page 2

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111543

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:

> We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels
> of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that
> humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D
> but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on.

What about time? Are we immortals? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111546

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:25:20 PM UTC+1, GOTHIER Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT)
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels
> > of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that
> > humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D
> > but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on.
> 
> What about time? Are we immortals? :-)
>
That's why I said for the sake of argument.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111551

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 07:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's why I said for the sake of argument.

What about the multiverse? :-D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111550

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

> We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three
> levels of nesting,

I'm pretty certain the singular form is "I've..."  HTH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111555

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

> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:03:08 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting
>> > and indexing dimensions.
>> 
>> Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't
>> comment.  Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of
>> my comment about metrics and topology?
>> 
> We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels
> of nesting,

Who make up this "we"?

(I'm going to assume you are varying the claim because you are being
imprecise with your language.  You originally posited that people have
great trouble with more than three levels which is not at all the same
thing as being able to cope with three.)

> which for the sake of argument we'll agree on.

I'll go along with *you* asserting that for the sake of argument but I
won't agree on it since I posted an example that I don't think anyone
coped with (I didn't, that's for sure).

> We also know that
> humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D
> but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on.
>
> The question is whether that is just a coincidence, like three being the optimal 
> tradeoff between visual and efficiency considerations for a windmill turbine,
> or whether it's related in some fashion.

That is indeed the question for people who accept the premises but since
I don't, I'm not that interested the question.

> If we say "it is related" we must say
> that nesting and indexing is interchangeable, nesting isn't easier because it
> doesn't have a topology such that character 1, line 1, page 1 is adjacent to 
> character 1, line1, page 2

Why must you leap to saying that nesting and indexing are
interchangeable just because you've concluded there is /some/ relation
between two 3s appearing in ones observation's (or, in this case, in
ones assumptions)?  To make that leap you'd have to know the nature of
the relationship and you'd have to make another case about general
indexing (where this is not topology) and 3D geometry (where there is).

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111561

On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 4:12:17 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> Why must you leap to saying that nesting and indexing are
> interchangeable just because you've concluded there is /some/ relation
> between two 3s appearing in ones observation's (or, in this case, in
> ones assumptions)?  To make that leap you'd have to know the nature of
> the relationship and you'd have to make another case about general
> indexing (where this is not topology) and 3D geometry (where there is).
> 
An array of arrays of arrays is nesting. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web