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 187 — 30 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 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 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 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
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 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 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da29d442-c885-4338-9677-20696e8c0164@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109692 |
W dniu środa, 10 maja 2017 19:06:47 UTC+2 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > >> Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd, > >> such as that trigraphs are desirable. However you tend to > >> find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule > >> of three") enough people dispute it to represent more than > >> a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. > > > > Your "rule of three" is supported by theory? Please elaborate. > > I apologize to the group for the above post. > i will join and apologize all newcomers and some oldercomers for posts of keith thompson in general
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oeuu9s$o0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109558 |
On 09/05/17 01:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> > You can set yourself up as an amateur psychologist if you > want. Ta, Malcolm. > But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes > such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the > subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather > than the true results. You are mistaken. Subjects are exactly the same as children (and animals). Under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, they will do as they damn well please. > Having said that, yes someone can claim something absurd, > such as that trigraphs are desirable. When the alternative is "no C compiler", they are indeed desirable. What's absurd about that? (Yes, I have worked on systems where the choice was C with trigraphs or no C at all.) > However you tend to > find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule > of three") What theory? > enough people dispute it to represent more than > a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. So far we have heard only one voice in support of it - yours. Everyone else who has expressed an opinion has disputed your finding, for which you have offered no concrete evidence whatsoever. Just who is the eccentric here? (Not that there is anything wrong with eccentricity, but it's always good to recognise it for what it is.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b32674d2-e3c4-4ec1-b5c4-ce43f19ddcdc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109654 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 12:45:13 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 09/05/17 01:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes > > such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the > > subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather > > than the true results. > > You are mistaken. Subjects are exactly the same as children (and > animals). Under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, they will do > as they damn well please. > Psychology is notorious for getting results which are repeatable and statistically significant, but don't generalise to anything outside the lab. For example Skinner's associates worked out the exact cage dimensions and severity of electric shock which created optimal learning in a rat on key-pressing tasks. However rats don't live in cages in the wild. > > > However you tend to > > find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule > > of three") > > What theory? > The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of parentheses nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube but not a 4d geometrical object. So I'm saying that somehow the same central nervous system processing pathways must be involved. Exactly what those pathways are of course remains a mystery, you can't answer that question, though you could shed some light on it by setting brain-damaged victims tasks. It's hard to do those experiments, however, getting permission to work with ill subjects is difficult. > > > enough people dispute it to represent more than > > a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. > > So far we have heard only one voice in support of it - yours. Everyone > else who has expressed an opinion has disputed your finding, for which > you have offered no concrete evidence whatsoever. Just who is the > eccentric here? (Not that there is anything wrong with eccentricity, but > it's always good to recognise it for what it is.) > If you read what I said, the people who dispute are not eccentrics, despite the basic claim (three levels of parentheses is enough, beyond that it's hard to read) being unexceptional, and despite a very powerful theoretical explanation why this might be so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oev1j7$3lr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109660 |
On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 12:45:13 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 09/05/17 01:32, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes >>> such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the >>> subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather >>> than the true results. >> >> You are mistaken. Subjects are exactly the same as children (and >> animals). Under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, they will do >> as they damn well please. >> > Psychology is notorious for getting results which are repeatable and > statistically significant, but don't generalise to anything outside the > lab. For example Skinner's associates worked out the exact cage dimensions > and severity of electric shock which created optimal learning in a rat > on key-pressing tasks. However rats don't live in cages in the wild. Are you suggesting that this is the right way to construct an experiment to test your "rule of three" hypothesis? I can see a number of practical objections. >>> However you tend to >>> find that even where a claim is supported by theory (my "rule >>> of three") >> >> What theory? >> > The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of parentheses > nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube but > not a 4d geometrical object. That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such results, you would have cited them long ago. >>> enough people dispute it to represent more than >>> a few eccentrics, without doing the experiments, of course. >> >> So far we have heard only one voice in support of it - yours. Everyone >> else who has expressed an opinion has disputed your finding, for which >> you have offered no concrete evidence whatsoever. Just who is the >> eccentric here? (Not that there is anything wrong with eccentricity, but >> it's always good to recognise it for what it is.) >> > If you read what I said, the people who dispute are not eccentrics, I did, and I know that the people who dispute are not eccentrics. If you read what /I/ said, you might find out who I was suggesting was the eccentric. > despite > the basic claim (three levels of parentheses is enough, beyond that it's > hard to read) being unexceptional, and despite a very powerful theoretical > explanation why this might be so. You have yet to offer a very powerful theoretical explanation. Perhaps your conceptualisation of "very powerful" is at odds with that of others here. For us, "because Malcolm says so" is not a very powerful theoretical explanation. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oev4k0$dtf$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109661 |
On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> >> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of >> parentheses >> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube >> but >> not a 4d geometrical object. > > That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to > be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such > results, you would have cited them long ago. > Actually, it is a theory. A theory is a proposal when can then be investigated by scientific methods. It may be proven or disproven by investigation. For instance, when Einstein proposed his Theory of Relativity, there was no scientific evidence to back it up. It has only been in the last century that various tests have supported his theory. One example of this is that Einstein's Theory of relativity predicted the presence of gravitional waves - which weren't actually detected for 100 years after being proposed. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <oev5n7$hhv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109667 |
On 10/05/17 14:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: > <snip> > >>> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of >>> parentheses >>> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube >>> but >>> not a 4d geometrical object. >> >> That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to >> be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such >> results, you would have cited them long ago. >> > > Actually, it is a theory. In the vernacular sense, at most. In science, it is at best a hypothesis. Somewhat to my surprise, Wikipedia agrees with me: "A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated." I think you have fallen into that very trap. But we are getting very far from the point, and in any case I see no value in debating this with you, given your debating track record. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oev9cp$ui0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109671 |
On 5/10/2017 9:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 10/05/17 14:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of
>>>> parentheses
>>>> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube
>>>> but
>>>> not a 4d geometrical object.
>>>
>>> That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to
>>> be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such
>>> results, you would have cited them long ago.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it is a theory.
>
> In the vernacular sense, at most.
>
> In science, it is at best a hypothesis. Somewhat to my surprise,
> Wikipedia agrees with me: "A common misconception is that scientific
> theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into
> scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated."
>
> I think you have fallen into that very trap.
>
> But we are getting very far from the point, and in any case I see no
> value in debating this with you, given your debating track record.
>
> <snip>
>
There is the truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes the two agree,
but not in this case. How about a respected source - Merriam-Webster:
Definition of theory
plural theories
1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or
body of principles offered to explain phenomena the wave theory of light
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the
basis of action her method is based on the theory that all children want
to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or
circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have
always advocated freedom for all
3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a
subject theory of equations
4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a
science, or an art music theory
5 : abstract thought : speculation
6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
Note especially definitions 3a and 3b. It is a theory.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oevbse$7tp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109678 |
On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/10/2017 9:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 10/05/17 14:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of >>>>> parentheses >>>>> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube >>>>> but >>>>> not a 4d geometrical object. >>>> >>>> That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to >>>> be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such >>>> results, you would have cited them long ago. >>>> >>> >>> Actually, it is a theory. >> >> In the vernacular sense, at most. >> >> In science, it is at best a hypothesis. Somewhat to my surprise, >> Wikipedia agrees with me: "A common misconception is that scientific >> theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into >> scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated." >> >> I think you have fallen into that very trap. >> >> But we are getting very far from the point, and in any case I see no >> value in debating this with you, given your debating track record. >> >> <snip> >> > > There is the truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes the two agree, > but not in this case. How about a respected source - Merriam-Webster: > How about reading what Richard wrote - it is a theory "in the vernacular sense at most". That matches fine with Wikipedia's accurate definition of what a theory is in a scientific sense, and also matches fine with your dictionary definition about how the word is often used. Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely related scenario. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, when published, built on substantial evidence - it was based on solid physics from physicists like Galileo, Lorentz and Maxwell, clear mathematics, and astronomical evidence. Malcolm's "theory of three" is based on, well, nothing at all. On a scale of quality of scientific theory, it comes in slightly below Last Thursdayism, though not nearly as thought-provoking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be921eee-e20c-449f-93ef-31873f560ebe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109680 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:36:59 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", > discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a > /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - > he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely > related scenario. > Powerful theoretical support. Why should the limit for understanding nesting at a glance be three? Because we're designed to live in a world with three dimensions, and mathematically nesting and dimensions are connected, as we see in computer programming (arrays of arrays of arrays). > That doesn't prove it. It means we're not simply pulling assertions out of a hat. > > Malcolm's "theory of three" is based on, well, nothing at all. On a > scale of quality of scientific theory, it comes in slightly below Last > Thursdayism, though not nearly as thought-provoking. > It's a psychological claim. It stands up to commonsense observation, and I'm fairly confident it will stand up to experiment. Three levels of parentheses nesting represents a limit. Any more and people have to match by counting or using automatic tools. The explanation why this should be so is more speculative, but it exists. The "rule of three" could be correct but the connection with a three dimensional world a red herring. That's always possible. We don't know how the brain really works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bmr0eg2r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #109686 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:36:59 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", >> discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a >> /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - >> he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely >> related scenario. >> > Powerful theoretical support. > Why should the limit for understanding nesting at a glance be three? a) Begging the question; b) changing the claim; c) you can not be serious. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2a422fe-f58d-4cd0-9d43-c3773f81ada4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109686 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:29:03 AM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:36:59 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > > Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", > > discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a > > /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - > > he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely > > related scenario. > > > Powerful theoretical support. Potay-to Potah-to. <gdr>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oevsdt$a4a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109686 |
On 10/05/17 18:28, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:36:59 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", >> discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a >> /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - >> he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely >> related scenario. >> > Powerful theoretical support. Proof by repeated assertion is not very convincing. You have given us /no/ theoretical support, powerful or otherwise. > Why should the limit for understanding nesting at a glance be three? You have given us no evidence that this limit exists. None. Not a jot. You have stated it many times as though it were an obvious fact, or clearly demonstrated in some way - yet no one else sees this limit, and you have presented no evidence at all. Now, I don't think anyone will argue the idea that parsing complex expressions with lots of parenthesis is harder than parsing simple ones - and that baring some clear pattern in the expression, increased nesting level correlates somewhat with greater difficulty in understanding. (Often, however, a bit of extra parenthesis makes expressions easier to follow.) What /no one/ agrees with is that there is a special cut-off limit at 3 deep nesting. There is no "rule of three". > Because we're designed to live in a world with three dimensions, > and mathematically nesting and dimensions are connected, as > we see in computer programming (arrays of arrays of arrays). No, there is no connection. For many purposes, two dimensions are significantly easier than three. For many purposes, one dimension is significantly easier than two. If I ever see a more than two levels of pointer indirection in an expression, I consider that expression too error-prone to be useable. Even at "**p", I would raise questions about the code quality. On the other hand, arrays with many dimensions might be perfectly clear. There is /no/ rule. And there is no evidence, theory, or justification for claiming that the number of dimensions we perceive in the world around us is related to anything else. You could just as well say the limit of understanding nesting is five, because we have five fingers - the evidence is equally strong. >> > That doesn't prove it. It means we're not simply pulling assertions out > of a hat. It is not your /hat/ from which you are pulling your assertions. You are right that your "explanation" here proves nothing. It also explains nothing, and justifies nothing. It shows why /you/ seem to think there is some hidden mystical meaning here, but it is pure imagination. >> >> Malcolm's "theory of three" is based on, well, nothing at all. On a >> scale of quality of scientific theory, it comes in slightly below Last >> Thursdayism, though not nearly as thought-provoking. >> > It's a psychological claim. It stands up to commonsense observation, No one else has said they observe this limit of 3 - and a good many people have said they have not. Statistically, you are on very shaking grounds if you think it is common sense. > and I'm fairly confident it will stand up to experiment. Three levels > of parentheses nesting represents a limit. Any more and people have > to match by counting or using automatic tools. Then design and carry out the experiment. Write up the results. Demonstrate that there is evidence for a claim that there is a limit to a level of three in parenthesis before people have trouble parsing the expression. Offer some clear proof, and people will take you seriously. Offer nothing but repeated claims without foundation other than mysticism, and you can expect ridicule. > > The explanation why this should be so is more speculative, but it exists. The blue fairy that lives on my bookshelf told me I can parse 4 levels of nesting. That is a rather speculative explanation - but it too "exists". > The "rule of three" could be correct but the connection with a three dimensional > world a red herring. That's always possible. We don't know how the brain > really works. > So now this "commonsense observation" with "powerful theoretical support", is merely something that could possibly be correct, and the "powerful theoretical support" itself could be a red herring?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87poff6gta.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #109708 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> So now this "commonsense observation" with "powerful theoretical
> support", is merely something that could possibly be correct, and the
> "powerful theoretical support" itself could be a red herring?
You are asking an understanding of the scientific process from a man who
self-published a book called "12 Common Atheist Argument Refuted" and
whose book on Richard Dawkins is reviewed here:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/malcolm-mclean/the-confutation-of-dawkins-the-god-delusion/ebook/product-18593870.html
Ms Groom seems to have Malc's reasoning style pretty well described:
"Many of the arguments put forward are flawed in a very obvious and
school boyish way and much of the 'logic' is anything but logical. Just
about every page of the preview is littered with statements which do not
and cannot withstand the test of reason"
And that was 10 years ago. Does any of that sound familiar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9d2a6f2-ab72-4752-a1d8-fd63c5d3c703@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109708 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 10/05/17 18:28, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Proof by repeated assertion is not very convincing. You have given us > /no/ theoretical support, powerful or otherwise. > The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised is three. That's based on the observation that it's about that, as you mention later. However, when we think about it, we realise that indirection and array nesting are different ways of looking at the same thing, and we can visualise 3 dimensional arrays but not ones of larger dimension. So there's your theoretical support, and it's pretty powerful, no-one will deny that human psychology is geared to a 3D world. > > Why should the limit for understanding nesting at a glance be three? > > You have given us no evidence that this limit exists. None. Not a jot. > You have stated it many times as though it were an obvious fact, or > clearly demonstrated in some way - yet no one else sees this limit, and > you have presented no evidence at all. > > Now, I don't think anyone will argue the idea that parsing complex > expressions with lots of parenthesis is harder than parsing simple ones > - and that baring some clear pattern in the expression, increased > nesting level correlates somewhat with greater difficulty in > understanding. (Often, however, a bit of extra parenthesis makes > expressions easier to follow.) > Exactly. The claim is pretty unexceptional. > > What /no one/ agrees with is that there is a special cut-off limit at 3 > deep nesting. There is no "rule of three". > You can argue that. With no evidence presented, there's no reason to suppose you are correct. Presumably you'd agree that ten million levels of nesting is too many for a human (but not a computer)? > > Because we're designed to live in a world with three dimensions, > > and mathematically nesting and dimensions are connected, as > > we see in computer programming (arrays of arrays of arrays). > > No, there is no connection. For many purposes, two dimensions are > significantly easier than three. For many purposes, one dimension is > significantly easier than two. If I ever see a more than two levels of > pointer indirection in an expression, I consider that expression too > error-prone to be useable. Even at "**p", I would raise questions about > the code quality. On the other hand, arrays with many dimensions might > be perfectly clear. There is /no/ rule. > > And there is no evidence, theory, or justification for claiming that the > number of dimensions we perceive in the world around us is related to > anything else. You could just as well say the limit of understanding > nesting is five, because we have five fingers - the evidence is equally > strong. > You can recognise about five objects without counting them. That's been researched, unlike parenthesis nesting, which hasn't as far as I know. > > Then design and carry out the experiment. Write up the results. > Demonstrate that there is evidence for a claim that there is a limit to > a level of three in parenthesis before people have trouble parsing the > expression. > > Offer some clear proof, and people will take you seriously. Offer > nothing but repeated claims without foundation other than mysticism, and > you can expect ridicule. > It takes a bit of doing to design a psychological experiment. Not massive resources, but still more than a free afternoon. > > So now this "commonsense observation" with "powerful theoretical > support", is merely something that could possibly be correct, and the > "powerful theoretical support" itself could be a red herring? > Exactly. That's the nature of science. You can have powerful theoretical reasons for beleiving that if someone discovers particle, there will be an anti-particle anti-x with opposite sign. But you might be barking up the wrong tree, until you can actually demonstrate that it exists. Similarly the rule of three is obviously about correct (the limit is a lot lower than ten million). But it's not proven, and yes, it does depend on other factors as well, such as spacing and whether the expression makes mathematical sense in context (I imagine, I haven't proved that either, you can always demand experimental verification for any claim, however unexceptional).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of1hqg$gg9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109734 |
On 11/05/17 09:39, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 9:19:34 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 10/05/17 18:28, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> Proof by repeated assertion is not very convincing. You have given us >> /no/ theoretical support, powerful or otherwise. >> > The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised > is three. That's based on the observation that it's about that, > as you mention later. I did not "mention that" later. Your claim has always been that nesting hits a /hard/ limit at 3 - that people can "visualise" or "instantly understand" expressions with up to 3 levels of nesting, but require counting or some other (usually unspecified) aid beyond that. Your claim has not been "about three" - it has been /exactly/ three. Now, if you want to go back on that and re-write your "law", then that's fine - please do so. But do so clearly and unambiguously, without trying to pretend it is merely different phrasing rather than a different statement. > However, when we think about it, we realise > that indirection and array nesting are different ways of looking > at the same thing, Different ways of looking at things give completely different results. Multiple layers of indirection very quickly get confusing. But it is no problem dealing with arrays of large numbers of dimensions - far more than just 3. Expressions with many nested brackets can be simple and clear if the layout shows a pattern, even though the same C tokens become almost incomprehensible when laid out differently. But no, indirection and array nesting are very different things. Some people in this group get very confused and believe that pointers and arrays are basically the same - other people know better. > and we can visualise 3 dimensional arrays but > not ones of larger dimension. That is utter nonsense. Again, your justification is nothing more than repeated assertion. We can visualise 3 dimensional /objects/ - cubes, spheres, etc. It is very difficult to visualise 4 dimensional objects (hypercubes, 4-simplexes, 4-balls, etc.) or 3 dimensional objects that require a 4 dimensional space (like Poincaré's 3-sphere), or even 2 dimensional objects that require 4 dimensional space (like a Klein bottle). But some 4 dimensional objects are fine. As a teenager, I used to play 4 dimensional noughts and crosses. (It turns out that 5 dimensions was too difficult for us to grasp easily - and with 7776 cells on the board, 5 dimensional noughts and crosses simply took too long to play, and by the end we usually found that someone had already won long ago.) And some 2 dimensional objects are impossible to properly visualise. Arrays, on the other hand, can be fine with multiple dimensions. Examples have already been given in this thread with using parts of peoples' addresses as the dimensions. > So there's your theoretical support, > and it's pretty powerful, no-one will deny that human psychology is > geared to a 3D world. No one denies that human psychology is heavily geared towards a 3 dimensional physical world. But I don't believe any one else sees a serious connection between that fact and the number of dimensions in an array, and even less connection with the levels of nesting in an expression. How is it that you find this so difficult to comprehend? > >>> Why should the limit for understanding nesting at a glance be three? >> >> You have given us no evidence that this limit exists. None. Not a jot. >> You have stated it many times as though it were an obvious fact, or >> clearly demonstrated in some way - yet no one else sees this limit, and >> you have presented no evidence at all. >> >> Now, I don't think anyone will argue the idea that parsing complex >> expressions with lots of parenthesis is harder than parsing simple ones >> - and that baring some clear pattern in the expression, increased >> nesting level correlates somewhat with greater difficulty in >> understanding. (Often, however, a bit of extra parenthesis makes >> expressions easier to follow.) >> > Exactly. The claim is pretty unexceptional. No, the claim that /I/ wrote above is quite reasonable. But that is /not/ what you have been claiming - not by a long shot. >> >> What /no one/ agrees with is that there is a special cut-off limit at 3 >> deep nesting. There is no "rule of three". >> > You can argue that. With no evidence presented, there's no reason > to suppose you are correct. /You/ are berating /me/ for lack of evidence? You joke, surely. Re-read this thread. Re-read other threads where you have made your claims of a "rule of three". Count the number of people that agree with you (if you include yourself, it is one - and even you don't seem sure at times). Count the number of people that disagree with you - there are a fair number, though most people have given up arguing with you. That's at least /some/ statistical evidence. But it is /you/ who need to present evidence for the existence of your rule. /I/ don't need to provide evidence of its non-existence - just as I don't need to provide evidence for a "rule of four" or a "rule of five". > Presumably you'd agree that ten million > levels of nesting is too many for a human (but not a computer)? Yes, of course. And we can all agree that one level of nesting is fine for people to comprehend. But that does /not/ mean that there is a hard and fixed limit point to human understanding of nesting levels - and it certainly does not mean that the limit is 3. We could agree that any qualified driver could drive on any road safely at 5 mph. We could agree that no driver could drive safely on a road at 500 mph. We can agree that the fastest land animal can run up to 70 mph, and is thus the fastest natural speed for land motion. Does that mean we can set a single universal speed limit for all roads, all drivers, and all circumstances and say that up to 70 mph is always safe, over that is always unsafe? That is the logic you are using, with just as "powerful" theoretical support. > >>> Because we're designed to live in a world with three dimensions, >>> and mathematically nesting and dimensions are connected, as >>> we see in computer programming (arrays of arrays of arrays). >> >> No, there is no connection. For many purposes, two dimensions are >> significantly easier than three. For many purposes, one dimension is >> significantly easier than two. If I ever see a more than two levels of >> pointer indirection in an expression, I consider that expression too >> error-prone to be useable. Even at "**p", I would raise questions about >> the code quality. On the other hand, arrays with many dimensions might >> be perfectly clear. There is /no/ rule. >> >> And there is no evidence, theory, or justification for claiming that the >> number of dimensions we perceive in the world around us is related to >> anything else. You could just as well say the limit of understanding >> nesting is five, because we have five fingers - the evidence is equally >> strong. >> > You can recognise about five objects without counting them. That's > been researched, unlike parenthesis nesting, which hasn't as far as > I know. The number of objects that can be identified without actively counting varies significantly from person to person, the type of objects, their appearance, their arrangement, and all sorts of other circumstances. The "about five" is very vague. It is not a hard limit such as you want to have for nesting parenthesis. Secondly, as you say here there has been /no/ research into nesting levels (that we know of). Thus there is /zero/ evidence to support your claims. Thirdly, identifying the number of objects at a glance is not necessarily strongly related to understanding an expression with nested parenthesis. >> >> Then design and carry out the experiment. Write up the results. >> Demonstrate that there is evidence for a claim that there is a limit to >> a level of three in parenthesis before people have trouble parsing the >> expression. >> >> Offer some clear proof, and people will take you seriously. Offer >> nothing but repeated claims without foundation other than mysticism, and >> you can expect ridicule. >> > It takes a bit of doing to design a psychological experiment. Not > massive resources, but still more than a free afternoon. Come back to us when you have carried it out and published the results with peer review. Until then, at least stop claiming there is "evidence" or "theory" supporting your "rule of three" - and admit it is no more than a gut feeling or personal opinion about your own abilities. >> >> So now this "commonsense observation" with "powerful theoretical >> support", is merely something that could possibly be correct, and the >> "powerful theoretical support" itself could be a red herring? >> > Exactly. That's the nature of science. You think the "nature of science" is to come up with a wild idea that everyone thinks is daft, state categorically in public that your idea has plenty of evidence, is based on common sense, and has "powerful theoretical support", and then later to say it is only a vague thought with some hand-waving possibilities for explanation? Do you also count "intelligent falling" as a strong scientific theory? Because that is a great deal more scientific than your concept of science. > You can have powerful theoretical > reasons for beleiving that if someone discovers particle, there will be > an anti-particle anti-x with opposite sign. But you might be barking up > the wrong tree, until you can actually demonstrate that it exists. If you actually /have/ theoretical reasons, then that's fine - though you have a hypothesis at best, not a theory. In your case, you have /no/ theoretical reasoning - your connections to other points involving the number 3 are not founded. You are not barking up the wrong tree - you don't have a tree in sight. You are just barking. > > Similarly the rule of three is obviously about correct (the limit is > a lot lower than ten million). No, it is not. It is obviously and clearly /incorrect/. All that is needed to demonstrate that is an expression with two or fewer levels of nesting that is hard to comprehend, or one that has four or more levels and is easy to comprehend. 1 + x*(4 + x*(6 + x*(4 + x)))) That is quite easy to comprehend, despite four levels of parenthesis. This has no parenthesis at all, and a nice regular pattern - but it is still very difficult to parse at a glance. (This example comes from a generated simulation of some programmable hardware - it is by no means the most complex example.): n241[0] = 1 & n231[0] >> 5 | 2 & n231[0] >> 5 | 4 & n231[0] >> 5 | 8 & n231[1] << 3 | 16 & n231[1] << 3 This quickly and simply establishes that the "rule of three" is not a rule - it is not even close to being "approximately true in general". We could easily state a rule that /is/ true: "Increasing levels of nesting, and increasing numbers of clauses, make expressions harder to comprehend quickly". Anecdotal evidence for that will be so high that no one will bother asking for statistics or studies. But that is because it does not try to put fixed numerical imits on things. > But it's not proven, and yes, it does > depend on other factors as well, such as spacing and whether the > expression makes mathematical sense in context (I imagine, I haven't > proved that either, you can always demand experimental verification > for any claim, however unexceptional). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of1kij$po5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109743 |
On 11/05/17 12:30, David Brown wrote: <snip> > We could easily state a rule that /is/ true: "Increasing levels of > nesting, and increasing numbers of clauses, make expressions harder to > comprehend quickly". Anecdotal evidence for that will be so high that > no one will bother asking for statistics or studies. But that is > because it does not try to put fixed numerical imits on things. Good news! The research /has/ now been done! RJH Laboratories Inc has pulled out all the stops to come up with some hard data for this important problem, and - guess what? - it turns out that people differ in their ability to comprehend nesting levels quickly. But the limit is, paradoxically, both lower /and/ higher than Malcolm believes. For most people the limit is, in fact, 0, to all intents and purposes. Of course, it's not quite as simple as that, because some people /do/ understand nesting levels. So let's look at the results. Let N be a nesting level (0+). Let P be the number of people who can comprehend *at most* that number of nesting levels at a confidence level of 95%, using the Abner Metric and taking the Hawthorne Effect into account. Let Pmax be the population of the planet. Then: P = 3 * Pmax * e^(-1.3862945237 * (N+1)) Thus, for approximately 5,250 million people, the mere concept of nesting is beyond them, and they just don't get it. Around 1,312 million people can quickly comprehend one level of nesting (but no more). Roughly 328 million people can manage up to two levels, but only 82 million people can handle up to three. And this is where Malcolm is going wrong. You see, it turns out that around 20 million people can manage up to *four* nesting levels. And guess how many programmers there are in the world? About 18 million. (This is not a coincidence.) About 5.1 million of us can cope with up to 5 nesting levels, and well over a million can handle six. And there's a woman in her 40s in Rio de Janeiro who can deal with an astonishing 16 levels of nesting quite comfortably. (But she's not a programmer - she's a checkout assistant in the Brazilian equivalent of a 99p shop.) I trust that we can now lay this issue to rest. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87inl7d0xd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #109743 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 11/05/17 09:39, Malcolm McLean wrote:
<snip>
>> The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised
>> is three.
<snip>
> Your claim has always been that nesting hits a /hard/ limit at 3 - that
> people can "visualise" or "instantly understand" expressions with up to
> 3 levels of nesting, but require counting or some other (usually
> unspecified) aid beyond that. Your claim has not been "about three" -
> it has been /exactly/ three.
Let's try some examples. Which of these are correct "at a glance"?
A (()()(()())(())()(()))(())())
B ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) )
C { [ (<>) ] <( [] )> }
D if ((int)( fabs(sin(theta)) )) ...
E (defun f (x y z)
(when
(equal (sum x y z) 42)
(print x)
)
)
Now ask yourself (by this I mean everyone reading this) is nesting the
key issue here? Is three a hard limit?
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of3s5i$gd4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109749 |
On 11/05/17 14:37, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 11/05/17 09:39, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> <snip>
>>> The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised
>>> is three.
> <snip>
>> Your claim has always been that nesting hits a /hard/ limit at 3 - that
>> people can "visualise" or "instantly understand" expressions with up to
>> 3 levels of nesting, but require counting or some other (usually
>> unspecified) aid beyond that. Your claim has not been "about three" -
>> it has been /exactly/ three.
>
> Let's try some examples. Which of these are correct "at a glance"?
>
> A (()()(()())(())()(()))(())())
No idea (at a glance).
>
> B ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) )
Correct.
>
> C { [ (<>) ] <( [] )> }
Correct. Is that a smiley sequence for bipolar disorder?
>
> D if ((int)( fabs(sin(theta)) )) ...
Correct.
>
> E (defun f (x y z)
> (when
> (equal (sum x y z) 42)
> (print x)
> )
> )
Correct.
>
> Now ask yourself (by this I mean everyone reading this) is nesting the
> key issue here? Is three a hard limit?
>
Well, you already know my opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnpofcsokw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109749 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 11/05/17 09:39, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised
>>> is three.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Your claim has always been that nesting hits a /hard/ limit at 3 - that
>> people can "visualise" or "instantly understand" expressions with up to
>> 3 levels of nesting, but require counting or some other (usually
>> unspecified) aid beyond that. Your claim has not been "about three" -
>> it has been /exactly/ three.
>
> Let's try some examples. Which of these are correct "at a glance"?
>
> A (()()(()())(())()(()))(())())
>
> B ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) )
>
> C { [ (<>) ] <( [] )> }
>
> D if ((int)( fabs(sin(theta)) )) ...
>
> E (defun f (x y z)
> (when
> (equal (sum x y z) 42)
> (print x)
> )
> )
>
> Now ask yourself (by this I mean everyone reading this) is nesting the
> key issue here? Is three a hard limit?
This response very nicely illustrates the different viewpoints I
was contrasting (ie, the most recent comments show one viewpoint,
and the oldest quoted posting reflects the other viewpoint).
Should we do no experiments, because fully reliable experiments
are too hard, or should we do some experiments, even if they are
not as reliable as one might like, and try to get some signal
up out of the noise? I firmly believe that some signal, even
if it might have a lot of noise, is better than no signal with
no noise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8decaab6-c961-4093-9915-a19beeb6ea00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109894 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 5:34:30 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> >
> >> On 11/05/17 09:39, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> The hypothesis that that the level of nesting that can be visualised
> >>> is three.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Your claim has always been that nesting hits a /hard/ limit at 3 - that
> >> people can "visualise" or "instantly understand" expressions with up to
> >> 3 levels of nesting, but require counting or some other (usually
> >> unspecified) aid beyond that. Your claim has not been "about three" -
> >> it has been /exactly/ three.
> >
> > Let's try some examples. Which of these are correct "at a glance"?
> >
> > A (()()(()())(())()(()))(())())
> >
> > B ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) )
> >
> > C { [ (<>) ] <( [] )> }
> >
> > D if ((int)( fabs(sin(theta)) )) ...
> >
> > E (defun f (x y z)
> > (when
> > (equal (sum x y z) 42)
> > (print x)
> > )
> > )
> >
> > Now ask yourself (by this I mean everyone reading this) is nesting the
> > key issue here? Is three a hard limit?
>
> This response very nicely illustrates the different viewpoints I
> was contrasting (ie, the most recent comments show one viewpoint,
> and the oldest quoted posting reflects the other viewpoint).
> Should we do no experiments, because fully reliable experiments
> are too hard, or should we do some experiments, even if they are
> not as reliable as one might like, and try to get some signal
> up out of the noise? I firmly believe that some signal, even
> if it might have a lot of noise, is better than no signal with
> no noise.
>
Ben's examples kind of miss the point. They are tests of symmetry,
not ability to parse nesting, with the exception of D, and
partially E - it's legitimate enough to point out that you can
extend parseability by using line breaks and indenting.
A nice demonstration is one which occurs by accident, such as
David Brown's unmatched close. There were no confusing or excessive
factors other than four levels of parentheses, giving strong support
to the idea that for David Brown at least, the number of nested
parentheses he can parse without counting is three.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web