Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #107910 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 245 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-08 22:17 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 07:42 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-04-09 07:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:42 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:25 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 22:56 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:18 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 14:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:18 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:53 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:48 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:36 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-20 13:24 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 08:05 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 15:32 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 11:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:41 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-09 13:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 22:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-10 09:12 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 08:22 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 18:28 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 17:49 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 20:33 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 13:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 21:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 22:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 18:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 21:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 23:09 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 12:40 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-11 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-26 10:38 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:51 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 13:14 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 10:42 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 19:04 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-14 21:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 19:05 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-26 12:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:55 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 00:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 18:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 18:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 00:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 08:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 08:58 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-11 09:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 16:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:02 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:59 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 21:40 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:17 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:37 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-06 00:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:49 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 13:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-06 20:23 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 21:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:09 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 15:10 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-07 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 21:08 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:28 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 10:16 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 02:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:36 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:06 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 14:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-09 19:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 21:35 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:25 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:48 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:23 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-05-18 09:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700
[OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 01:47 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-15 11:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-15 13:22 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-15 06:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700
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
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 18:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-05-18 09:31 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-18 11:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 09:29 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-13 16:00 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 16:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170605164150.26b3df9118ddf39ecd82705f@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111546 |
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]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 15:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874lvu8pep.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111542 |
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]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 16:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87inkalb95.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111542 |
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]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79739d7e-fc24-4d06-9bfa-8d9db0647f16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111555 |
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]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7cebd6fa-279c-4f41-85ba-5ead7f006ec8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111561 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 9:08:39 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote: > 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. I think the evidence from linguistics is that tolerance for embedding (of clauses within clauses in English) varies from person to person and is more like six or seven than three. I know that I can count the number of items in a set (for example pills) in a glance if the number is no greater than six but I make mistakes at seven. A very practical problem if one fills a weekly pill box.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24177f10-407b-495b-a27a-062e9a9ca35a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111561 |
If array of array is nesting are nesting recursive functions too...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 23:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y3t6ujsy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111561 |
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? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 01:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af8fdc8b-51ed-4458-ab76-952503e8ebb8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111594 |
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. But the rule of three is a psychological claim, not a mathematical one. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh5rc9$6nq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111611 |
On 06/06/17 10:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: > 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. > > But the rule of three is a psychological claim, not a mathematical one. > > 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. > 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! <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <466698bd-b99b-4ce6-ac3d-d8ba14087ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111612 |
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?). > > 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. 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".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 12:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh5v5p$j70$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111613 |
On 06/06/17 11:39, Malcolm McLean wrote: > 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?). >> >> 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. > Don't you even /realise/ how often you have changed your point of view? You make absurd concrete, precise statements that you claim are obvious and irrefutable rules, then gradually reduce them to being vague ideas that might be related to other ideas, or might not. > 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". > It is exactly the same - if you say animal A is a type of B, that tells us nothing more about them. Equally, in mathematics, saying the set of integers is a subset of the set of rationals conveys more information. Oh, and E. coli are not types of elephants, nor are elephants a type of E. coli. And for the sake of anyone with food poisoning, I am glad they are not interchangeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 03:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea2b4091-645f-415c-8087-2c25ed849c0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111615 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 06/06/17 11:39, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > 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?). > >> > >> 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. > > > > Don't you even /realise/ how often you have changed your point of view? > You make absurd concrete, precise statements that you claim are obvious > and irrefutable rules, then gradually reduce them to being vague ideas > that might be related to other ideas, or might not. > > > 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". > > > > It is exactly the same - if you say animal A is a type of B, that tells > us nothing more about them. Equally, in mathematics, saying the set of > integers is a subset of the set of rationals conveys more information. > > Oh, and E. coli are not types of elephants, nor are elephants a type of > E. coli. And for the sake of anyone with food poisoning, I am glad they > are not interchangeable. > "As in E. coli, so in elephant" is a famous aphorism in biochemistry. They're both organisms. What we see in one tells us quite a bit about the other, and therefore about all organisms, or maybe all organisms except a narrow subset. But it's not a mathematical rule, it doesn't even always hold. We can't prove mathematically that humans can't parse more than 3 levels of nested parentheses. Yes, it is in a sense a statement about mathematics, but it's also a statement about psychology. We can show, indeed you showed yourself, that three seems to be the limit. We can then speculate why that might be. Since nested arrays and cubes are two ways of visualising the same thing, it seems reasonable that they are related. But we can't prove that in a mathematical way. It's a poverty of thinking to insist you must. The naive idea is that statements must either be provably, irrefutably correct, or they are to be dismissed. That applies to computer programs, it's either correct or it is bugged, it doesn't apply to other areas of life, including even laying out programs so that they are humanly understandable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh62al$tfj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111616 |
On 06/06/17 12:47, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:15:49 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/06/17 11:39, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> 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?). >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> Don't you even /realise/ how often you have changed your point of view? >> You make absurd concrete, precise statements that you claim are obvious >> and irrefutable rules, then gradually reduce them to being vague ideas >> that might be related to other ideas, or might not. >> >>> 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". >>> >> >> It is exactly the same - if you say animal A is a type of B, that tells >> us nothing more about them. Equally, in mathematics, saying the set of >> integers is a subset of the set of rationals conveys more information. >> >> Oh, and E. coli are not types of elephants, nor are elephants a type of >> E. coli. And for the sake of anyone with food poisoning, I am glad they >> are not interchangeable. >> > "As in E. coli, so in elephant" is a famous aphorism in biochemistry. > They're both organisms. What we see in one tells us quite a bit about the > other, and therefore about all organisms, or maybe all organisms except > a narrow subset. But it's not a mathematical rule, it doesn't even always > hold. It is not science either - because in science, to be a rule it should always hold as far as we know. It's just a saying that can be a useful guideline - like in mathematics you might say "this looks like a pattern". You are making a distinction between mathematics and other sciences that does not exist - pretending that this lets you off the hook for writing something that is at best a vague idea of yours, formulated as though it were a clearly defined absolute rule. > > We can't prove mathematically that humans can't parse more than 3 levels > of nested parentheses. Yes, it is in a sense a statement about mathematics, > but it's also a statement about psychology. We can show, indeed you showed > yourself, that three seems to be the limit. We can then speculate why that might > be. You have been shown countless examples of when humans /can/ parse more than 3 levels of nested parentheses. You have been shown countless examples (including my own) of when /2/ levels is enough to give a high chance of error. Everyone is happy with the idea that increased nesting usually means complex expressions, and that complex expressions are harder to parse correctly than simple ones. /Why/ are you so obsessed with the idea that 3 is a magic number in all this? It is pointless to speculate why "three seems to be the limit" when it has been so clearly demonstrated that there is no particular limit at all. > > Since nested arrays and cubes are two ways of visualising the same thing, No, they are not. Depending on what you are dealing with, a set of three nested arrays /might/ be visualised as a cube - but it might not make any sense at all. > it > seems reasonable that they are related. No, that does not follow - even if your premise about what we can parse and the dimensions of a cube was correct. At best, it might seem reasonable to consider if they are related. > But we can't prove that in a mathematical > way. On the other hand, we have had no problem /disproving/ it in a scientific way. > It's a poverty of thinking to insist you must. If you are going to make a claim as an absolute rule, as you have been doing, then it is perfectly reasonable to insist that you give a reasonable level of proof. I agree that it could not be proven mathematically - but if it were true then you should certainly be able to show statistical evidence for it along with a reasonable scientific argument for why it might be so. As it stands, your claim has all the authority of a claim that the earth is flat. > The naive idea is that statements > must either be provably, irrefutably correct, or they are to be dismissed. Maybe that is the way /you/ like to think, but it is not how I or others here think. What we do think, however, is that an extraordinary claim that runs contrary to the evidence presented, needs some backing up. > That applies > to computer programs, it's either correct or it is bugged, it doesn't apply to other areas of > life, including even laying out programs so that they are humanly understandable. > There is only one area of life in which people regularly make wild and dramatic claims that run contrary to the evidence around them and the opinions of others. We have seen that sort of thing too much in c.l.c. for most people's tastes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4888171d-0560-452e-8875-889383d8e240@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111618 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:09:37 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 06/06/17 12:47, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > "As in E. coli, so in elephant" is a famous aphorism in biochemistry. > > They're both organisms. What we see in one tells us quite a bit about the > > other, and therefore about all organisms, or maybe all organisms except > > a narrow subset. But it's not a mathematical rule, it doesn't even always > > hold. > > It is not science either - because in science, to be a rule it should > always hold as far as we know. It's just a saying that can be a useful > guideline - like in mathematics you might say "this looks like a pattern". > > You are making a distinction between mathematics and other sciences that > does not exist - pretending that this lets you off the hook for writing > something that is at best a vague idea of yours, formulated as though it > were a clearly defined absolute rule. > It depends on your science. A lot of science, like psychology, is mainly descriptive. Skinner tried to turn psychology into a hard science like physics by ruthlessly stripping behaviour down to its bare essentials. The "Skinner box" was closed box in which a rat lived, with only levers to interact with. He did succeed in making his results reproducible. But the conclusion on his work was that it wasn't applicable, it didn't tell us much about anything except rats in boxes. A psychological observation - that three is the limit on parentheses that can be easily parsed (it should go without saying that we mean similar symbols in short expressions, and without devices to increase symmetry) - leads to a theory - since we can express array dimensions as nesting, and we know why three is the limit for visualising arrays, doesn't the same limit apply for the same underlying reason to nesting. But that remains just a theory. It's hard to test. The first test is to make sure that the observations are correct, that three is in fact a limit. That seems to be pretty solid, the exceptions that have been given are either cheats or failure to understand the self similarity requirement. > > /Why/ are you so obsessed with the idea that 3 is a magic number in all this? > > It is pointless to speculate why "three seems to be the limit" when it > has been so clearly demonstrated that there is no particular limit at all. > Because it's potentially a useful result. The observation that the more complex the expression the harder it is to read doesn't tell us anything. If we can put a number on it then we can being to understand. That's how science works, you start with description (these caves are full of bats), then try to assign numbers (2,300 bats live in this cave), then to formulae (we have 50 bats per metre squared, will that apply to other caves, are populations limited by roosting space or by other factors?). If there's "no particular limit" you're just giving up. Bats live in the cave, something must limit their numbers, even if it is only cave volume divided by bat volume. Humans can parse expressions, something must limit the complexity of those expressions, even if it's just the size of the visual field. > > If you are going to make a claim as an absolute rule, as you have been > doing, then it is perfectly reasonable to insist that you give a > reasonable level of proof. > You yourself provided a reasonable level of proof. Three is your limit. As In David Brown, so in Malcolm McLean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 14:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170606142504.2b9118b30f8bd1a36c0332f9@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111625 |
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > A lot of science, like psychology, is mainly descriptive. Skinner tried to turn If your consider psychology as a science... :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9ed3ef2-1863-4ca1-bd7d-072d3d70a175@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111626 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 1:28:25 PM UTC+1, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 05:26:44 -0700 (PDT) > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A lot of science, like psychology, is mainly descriptive. Skinner tried to turn > > If your consider psychology as a science... :o) > We fundamentally don't understand what psychology is. We don't know what it means to be aware of something, or to take a decision. That doesn't mean the results aren't often replicable. But psychological experiments on humans are notoriously hard to devise and control properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 15:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170606154154.04b8ed889357763aa824c6c5@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111627 |
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 05:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > We fundamentally don't understand what psychology is. We don't know what > it means to be aware of something, or to take a decision. That doesn't mean > the results aren't often replicable. But psychological experiments on humans > are notoriously hard to devise and control properly. There's no logic in the human behavior. There's only recurrence with approximately 7 billions of individuals on Earth. Some people do good things others do bad things and even some think psychology is a science... :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 15:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh692l$kuu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111625 |
On 06/06/17 14:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:09:37 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/06/17 12:47, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> "As in E. coli, so in elephant" is a famous aphorism in biochemistry. >>> They're both organisms. What we see in one tells us quite a bit about the >>> other, and therefore about all organisms, or maybe all organisms except >>> a narrow subset. But it's not a mathematical rule, it doesn't even always >>> hold. >> >> It is not science either - because in science, to be a rule it should >> always hold as far as we know. It's just a saying that can be a useful >> guideline - like in mathematics you might say "this looks like a pattern". >> >> You are making a distinction between mathematics and other sciences that >> does not exist - pretending that this lets you off the hook for writing >> something that is at best a vague idea of yours, formulated as though it >> were a clearly defined absolute rule. >> > It depends on your science. > > A lot of science, like psychology, is mainly descriptive. Sorry, I was talking about /science/. You know, theories, evidence, data, experiments, predictions, repeatable results - that sort of thing? Psychology is not a science. It is a "craft" - there is a certain basis in logical and scientific theory, but much of it is about how the practitioner prefers to do things. The "descriptive" bits are not science - they are a collection of ideas and experiences. (This is not a condemnation of psychology.) > Skinner tried to turn > psychology into a hard science like physics by ruthlessly stripping behaviour > down to its bare essentials. The "Skinner box" was closed box in which a rat > lived, with only levers to interact with. He did succeed in making his results > reproducible. But the conclusion on his work was that it wasn't applicable, > it didn't tell us much about anything except rats in boxes. > > A psychological observation - that three is the limit on parentheses that can > be easily parsed /Your/ personal observation, unrelated to anyone else or other people's experience. > (it should go without saying that we mean similar symbols in > short expressions, and without devices to increase symmetry) Why should that "go without saying"? Do you just mean some extra conditions that you forgot to mention when first declaring your absolute fixed rule, and that you have added in afterwards? > - leads to a > theory - since we can express array dimensions as nesting, and we know why > three is the limit for visualising arrays, doesn't the same limit apply for the same > underlying reason to nesting. That is not a "theory" - certainly not in the scientific sense. I would not even count it as a "theory" in a pseudo-scientific sense. It is a vague idea, with no evidence or basis. That is all. > > But that remains just a theory. It's hard to test. The first test is to make sure that > the observations are correct, that three is in fact a limit. That seems to be pretty > solid, the exceptions that have been given are either cheats or failure to understand > the self similarity requirement. How often are you going to deny reality? Even when you change the rules as you go along, such as now introducing a "self similarity requirement", it is still nonsense. > >> >> /Why/ are you so obsessed with the idea that 3 is a magic number in all this? >> >> It is pointless to speculate why "three seems to be the limit" when it >> has been so clearly demonstrated that there is no particular limit at all. >> > Because it's potentially a useful result. No, it is not. Even if your "rule of three" were approximately correct, and even if your explanation for it were approximately correct, it still would not be useful. We already know that we should write code that is clear and easy to understand - what benefit could it possibly be to anyone to know that the reason we can't understand more than 3 levels of nesting is that we live in a 3D world? Now, if you had said "because it would be an /interesting/ result", I would agree. It is still nonsense, of course, but if it had been true, it would have been interesting. > The observation that the more complex > the expression the harder it is to read doesn't tell us anything. It tells us that we should keep our expressions simple. And that is about as concrete a rule as we can get here - the details all vary according to circumstance. > If we can put > a number on it then we can being to understand. That's how science works, you > start with description (these caves are full of bats), then try to assign numbers > (2,300 bats live in this cave), then to formulae (we have 50 bats per metre squared, > will that apply to other caves, are populations limited by roosting space or by > other factors?). If there's "no particular limit" you're just giving up. It is not "giving up" - it is accepting that programming is not a science (it is better described as a craft), and that some things do not have a single number answer. Your idea is to count the 2300 bats living in one cave, and declare that all caves contain 2300 bats, perhaps because there are 2300 trees in the woods near your house. > Bats live in > the cave, something must limit their numbers, even if it is only cave volume > divided by bat volume. Humans can parse expressions, something must limit the > complexity of those expressions, even if it's just the size of the visual field. Great. With something about 100 million retina cells, and say a 6x8 minimal readable font, that leaves us room for about 1,000,000 pairs of brackets. If you want to claim that humans cannot parse more a million sets of nested brackets at a glance, I will not argue with you (unless it is because you think that is the average total length of a person's hair, in cm). >> >> If you are going to make a claim as an absolute rule, as you have been >> doing, then it is perfectly reasonable to insist that you give a >> reasonable level of proof. >> > You yourself provided a reasonable level of proof. Three is your limit. > As In David Brown, so in Malcolm McLean. > Look it up - I made a mistake with /three/ levels of nesting. If it is proof of anything, it is that /two/ levels is the limit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5936e84b.7933453@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #111625 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:09:37 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > If you are going to make a claim as an absolute rule, as you have been > > doing, then it is perfectly reasonable to insist that you give a > > reasonable level of proof. > > > You yourself provided a reasonable level of proof. Three is your limit. McLean, stop slandering David. That's my job, not yours. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh8cl1$7us$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111647 |
On 06/06/17 19:37, Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:09:37 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >>> If you are going to make a claim as an absolute rule, as you have been >>> doing, then it is perfectly reasonable to insist that you give a >>> reasonable level of proof. >>> >> You yourself provided a reasonable level of proof. Three is your limit. > > McLean, stop slandering David. That's my job, not yours. > :-) (Actually, your criticisms usually have at least some validity - and are thus not slander.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web