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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#111646

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

> 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".

I've never known an elephant to give anyone diarrhea.

Richard

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

#111655

On 06/06/17 19:34, Richard Bos wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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".
> 
> I've never known an elephant to give anyone diarrhea.
> 

If you see an angry elephant charging down at you, you'll soon get a 
similar effect!

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

#111659

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

> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> 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 would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange.

I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse.  IME his
comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite.
In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one
is better.  (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.)

I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean.
IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly
reasoned, or sometimes all of the above.  On top of that, more
than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and
undeserved sense of self worth.  On average what he contributes
to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive.

And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle
re-writing quite apt.

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

#111661

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:10:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange.
> 
> I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse.  IME his
> comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite.
> In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one
> is better.  (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.)
> 
> I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean.
> IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly
> reasoned, or sometimes all of the above.  On top of that, more
> than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and
> undeserved sense of self worth.  On average what he contributes
> to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive.
> 
> And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle
> re-writing quite apt.
>
What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do
you find hard to understand? 

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

#111664

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do
> you find hard to understand? 

Malcolm, do you *really* think that we disagree with you because
we don't understand the phrase "three levels of nested parentheses
and no more"?

We understand what you've been saying.  We just think you're wrong.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#111987

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

> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:10:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange.
>>
>> I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse.  IME his
>> comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite.
>> In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one
>> is better.  (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.)
>>
>> I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean.
>> IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly
>> reasoned, or sometimes all of the above.  On top of that, more
>> than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and
>> undeserved sense of self worth.  On average what he contributes
>> to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive.
>>
>> And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle
>> re-writing quite apt.
>
> What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do
> you find hard to understand?

You also need to work on your listening skills.

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

#111619

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

> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:55:00 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>> 
>> "X is a kind of Y" does not mean that "X and Y are interchangeable".  I
>> don't think there's much point in going on is there?
>> 
> You're thinking too much like a mathematician.

My point is not mathematical by scientific.  You are not thinking enough
like a scientist.

> But the rule of three is a psychological claim, not a mathematical
> one.

Specifically a scientific one (presumably you agree that psychology is a
science).

> If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know 
> as in Y, so in X.

If I understand your vague wording, you are saying nothing more than
that X will have all the required attributes to be a kind of Y, twice.

-- 
Ben.

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

#111621

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 

> > If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know 
> > as in Y, so in X.
> 
> If I understand your vague wording, you are saying nothing more than
> that X will have all the required attributes to be a kind of Y, twice.
> 
I'll make it more concrete.

We have "organisms", "elephants" and "E. coli". If we know that "organisms"
have two types of nucleic acid, that tells us that both elephants and E. coli
have two types of nucleic acid. So "X is a kind of Y" (elephants are a kind
of organism)."as in Y, so in X". (as in organisms, so in elephant). 

But let's say we only know that elephants have two kinds of nucleic acid.
Does that tell us anything about "organisms?". Strictly, no. But if we can
also show that E. coli have two sorts of nucleic acid, we've got reason to
suppose that this will hold for most organisms, maybe for all. If we don't
know anything about any organism except elephants, we can still assume that
elephants will be fairly representative.

Now 3D arrays can be represented by nesting, but nesting can represent things
other than 3D arrays. And we know that 3D arrays are the limit for visualisation.
Now is it true that by mentally shifting to a nesting visualisation you can visualise
a 3D array? Well kind of, if you start giving concrete names to the levels. But
not otherwise. We can say "arrays" and everyone will understand. We can say
"arrays of arrays" and everyone will be able to visualise a table. We can say
"arrays of arrays of arrays" and we've still got most people, but that's a limit,
we can't go up to "arrays of arrays of arrays of arrays" without people counting
the words.
 


 

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

#111645

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

> If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know 
> as in Y, so in X.

Magical thinking.

"As above, so below".

Richard

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

#111560

On 05/06/17 16:22, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> 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,

Is that the "royal we"?  /You/ believe you have made this observation - 
I don't think anyone else agrees with you.

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

Eh, okay.  It's a bit like agreeing that the moon is made of cheese, for 
the sake of an argument as to whether it is Cheddar or Wensleydale.

> 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.

That has a lot more going for it (though it has already been shown that 
people can visualise 4D objects to some extent).  But fair enough, I 
think we can agree on that.

> 
> The question is whether that is just a coincidence, 

Yes, that is a key question.

> like three being the optimal
> tradeoff between visual and efficiency considerations for a windmill turbine,

I can't accept that claim just like that, but as it is irrelevant to 
your point, we can skip it.

> or whether it's related in some fashion. If we say "it is related" we must say
> that nesting and indexing is interchangeable, 

No, we must not say they are interchangeable.  We might agree that your 
granny and your little sister are related, but I don't think they are 
interchangeable.

If we agreed that the concepts are related (and I certainly don't), then 
we could look at /how/ they are related, and to what extent.  You can't 
call them interchangeable unless you can show that they are so strongly 
related that they are equivalent.  And that is a much stronger 
proposition than the claim that they are related.

> 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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web