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 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 08:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny3t5jeu8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #111616 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> 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.
[...]
If I may summarize the discussion:
Malcolm claims that his "rule of three" is obvious and universally true.
Malcolm is demonstrably wrong.
Malcolm will never acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong.
I think that pretty much covers it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 19:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ink9m154.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111634 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > If I may summarize the discussion: > > Malcolm claims that his "rule of three" is obvious and universally true. > Malcolm is demonstrably wrong. > Malcolm will never acknowledge the possibility that he is wrong. > > I think that pretty much covers it. Gee, I wish I'd pointed that out weeks ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 19:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mv9lm16e.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111615 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > 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. Hanlon's Razor applies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 12:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fufduyr6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111613 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/06/17 10:15, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> It does not matter if you are thinking mathematically, or >> psychologically - if X is a kind of Y, then X has the features of Y. >> But that does not mean X and Y are interchangeable! >> > But we can toggle between a nesting and a multi-dimensional view of > an array. It's either an array of arrays of arrays ... (how many "arrays" > are allowed before you resort to counting them?) or it's a cube > with each sub-cube representing a data item (how many dimensions > can you visualise before this becomes difficult?). But you are hoping to make the leap to nesting like this: (()()(()())(())()(()))(())()) Your evidence (or reasoning) must link 3-dimensional space, indexing of arrays and nesting of parentheses. It's not helped by multiple claims (some thing are impossible, some at a glance, which is it today?) nor by failing to track all exceptions you've acknowledged. The result is that no one but you even knows what's being claimed at any one time. >> As Ben says, there is probably not much point in continuing. Watching >> your frantic back-peddling and attempts to re-write the twaddle you >> posted is entertaining for a bit, but not very constructive. >> > Pure arrogance. Ben's an academic thus notorious for being catty, > but you don't even have that excuse. I am fine with you calling me catty, but to make sweeping claims about a whole profession is petty and patently absurd. > In mathematics, if we know A is in B, that tells us nothing about B other > than the A subset. In science, "as in E. coli, so in elephant". What do you hope to convey by this vague wording? If you want to say that the perception of nesting and the perception of 3D space share the same sort of relationship as E. coli and elephants? I'm happy to accept that as a starting point. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5936e77f.7728625@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #111613 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > In mathematics, if we know A is in B, that tells us nothing about B other > than the A subset. In science, "as in E. coli, so in elephant". I've never known an elephant to give anyone diarrhea. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 21:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh6una$64s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111646 |
On 06/06/17 19:34, Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In mathematics, if we know A is in B, that tells us nothing about B other >> than the A subset. In science, "as in E. coli, so in elephant". > > I've never known an elephant to give anyone diarrhea. > If you see an angry elephant charging down at you, you'll soon get a similar effect!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4lvsc1xi.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #111613 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> >> As Ben says, there is probably not much point in continuing. Watching >> your frantic back-peddling and attempts to re-write the twaddle you >> posted is entertaining for a bit, but not very constructive. > > Pure arrogance. Ben's an academic thus notorious for being catty, > but you don't even have that excuse. I would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange. I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse. IME his comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite. In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one is better. (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.) I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean. IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly reasoned, or sometimes all of the above. On top of that, more than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and undeserved sense of self worth. On average what he contributes to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive. And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle re-writing quite apt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1adcfe46-8bb5-40f2-b68f-e6ad53686e0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111659 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:10:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >> > >> As Ben says, there is probably not much point in continuing. Watching > >> your frantic back-peddling and attempts to re-write the twaddle you > >> posted is entertaining for a bit, but not very constructive. > > > > Pure arrogance. Ben's an academic thus notorious for being catty, > > but you don't even have that excuse. > > I would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange. > > I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse. IME his > comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite. > In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one > is better. (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.) > > I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean. > IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly > reasoned, or sometimes all of the above. On top of that, more > than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and > undeserved sense of self worth. On average what he contributes > to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive. > > And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle > re-writing quite apt. > What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do you find hard to understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnr2ywkb0k.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #111661 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do
> you find hard to understand?
Malcolm, do you *really* think that we disagree with you because
we don't understand the phrase "three levels of nested parentheses
and no more"?
We understand what you've been saying. We just think you're wrong.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-11 16:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn37b69lao.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #111661 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:10:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:11:02 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> As Ben says, there is probably not much point in continuing. Watching >>>> your frantic back-peddling and attempts to re-write the twaddle you >>>> posted is entertaining for a bit, but not very constructive. >>> >>> Pure arrogance. Ben's an academic thus notorious for being catty, >>> but you don't even have that excuse. >> >> I would like to offer a few reactions to this exchange. >> >> I look forward to reading postings from Ben Bacarisse. IME his >> comments are thoughtful, clearly reasoned, patient and polite. >> In terms of being a positive contributor to the group, no one >> is better. (Some are equal - I haven't tried to count how many.) >> >> I do not look forward to reading postings from Malcolm McLean. >> IME his comments are shallow, empty-headed, fuzzy, unclearly >> reasoned, or sometimes all of the above. On top of that, more >> than any other person in the group he has an over-developed and >> undeserved sense of self worth. On average what he contributes >> to the group is negative a lot more than it is positive. >> >> And FWIW I find the characterization as back-pedaling and twaddle >> re-writing quite apt. > > What part of "three levels of nested parentheses and no more" do > you find hard to understand? You also need to work on your listening skills.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mv9lv0by.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111611 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:55:00 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 4:12:17 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> >> >> Why must you leap to saying that nesting and indexing are >> >> interchangeable just because you've concluded there is /some/ relation >> >> between two 3s appearing in ones observation's (or, in this case, in >> >> ones assumptions)? To make that leap you'd have to know the nature of >> >> the relationship and you'd have to make another case about general >> >> indexing (where this is not topology) and 3D geometry (where there is). >> >> >> > An array of arrays of arrays is nesting. >> >> "X is a kind of Y" does not mean that "X and Y are interchangeable". I >> don't think there's much point in going on is there? >> > You're thinking too much like a mathematician. My point is not mathematical by scientific. You are not thinking enough like a scientist. > But the rule of three is a psychological claim, not a mathematical > one. Specifically a scientific one (presumably you agree that psychology is a science). > If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know > as in Y, so in X. If I understand your vague wording, you are saying nothing more than that X will have all the required attributes to be a kind of Y, twice. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 04:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88438173-7d27-4603-b2c2-dbe8eb182349@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111619 |
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know > > as in Y, so in X. > > If I understand your vague wording, you are saying nothing more than > that X will have all the required attributes to be a kind of Y, twice. > I'll make it more concrete. We have "organisms", "elephants" and "E. coli". If we know that "organisms" have two types of nucleic acid, that tells us that both elephants and E. coli have two types of nucleic acid. So "X is a kind of Y" (elephants are a kind of organism)."as in Y, so in X". (as in organisms, so in elephant). But let's say we only know that elephants have two kinds of nucleic acid. Does that tell us anything about "organisms?". Strictly, no. But if we can also show that E. coli have two sorts of nucleic acid, we've got reason to suppose that this will hold for most organisms, maybe for all. If we don't know anything about any organism except elephants, we can still assume that elephants will be fairly representative. Now 3D arrays can be represented by nesting, but nesting can represent things other than 3D arrays. And we know that 3D arrays are the limit for visualisation. Now is it true that by mentally shifting to a nesting visualisation you can visualise a 3D array? Well kind of, if you start giving concrete names to the levels. But not otherwise. We can say "arrays" and everyone will understand. We can say "arrays of arrays" and everyone will be able to visualise a table. We can say "arrays of arrays of arrays" and we've still got most people, but that's a limit, we can't go up to "arrays of arrays of arrays of arrays" without people counting the words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5936e733.7652828@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #111611 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > If X is a kind of Y then we expect so in X, as in Y, just as we know > as in Y, so in X. Magical thinking. "As above, so below". Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 17:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oh3ut4$l22$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #111542 |
On 05/06/17 16:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:03:08 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting >>> and indexing dimensions. >> >> Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't >> comment. Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of >> my comment about metrics and topology? >> > We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels > of nesting, Is that the "royal we"? /You/ believe you have made this observation - I don't think anyone else agrees with you. > which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. Eh, okay. It's a bit like agreeing that the moon is made of cheese, for the sake of an argument as to whether it is Cheddar or Wensleydale. > We also know that > humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D > but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on. That has a lot more going for it (though it has already been shown that people can visualise 4D objects to some extent). But fair enough, I think we can agree on that. > > The question is whether that is just a coincidence, Yes, that is a key question. > like three being the optimal > tradeoff between visual and efficiency considerations for a windmill turbine, I can't accept that claim just like that, but as it is irrelevant to your point, we can skip it. > or whether it's related in some fashion. If we say "it is related" we must say > that nesting and indexing is interchangeable, No, we must not say they are interchangeable. We might agree that your granny and your little sister are related, but I don't think they are interchangeable. If we agreed that the concepts are related (and I certainly don't), then we could look at /how/ they are related, and to what extent. You can't call them interchangeable unless you can show that they are so strongly related that they are equivalent. And that is a much stronger proposition than the claim that they are related. > nesting isn't easier because it > doesn't have a topology such that character 1, line 1, page 1 is adjacent to > character 1, line1, page 2 > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of9n65$j6e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109897 |
On 13/05/17 18:48, Malcolm McLean wrote: > 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. No, they don't miss the point - they demonstrate it quite clearly. They show that the concept of a hard limit at 3 levels does not exist. You can't keep adding new conditions and exceptions while simultaneously still claiming your "rule of three" as a rule. It is nonsense, and your wild arm waving here shows that you /know/ it is nonsense. > > 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. > > No, it shows that I can make mistakes already at /three/ levels of nested parenthesis in an expression with a helpful structure. If anything, it is evidence for a "rule of two", not a "rule of three". Sometimes expressions with more than three levels of nesting are easily understood (like Ben's examples) - other times, more than 2 gives scope for confusion. There /is/ no rule here with fixed values - all that can be said is that more complex expressions are harder to parse.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 18:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vap23t6f.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #109948 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 13/05/17 18:48, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> 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. > > No, they don't miss the point - they demonstrate it quite clearly. > They show that the concept of a hard limit at 3 levels does not exist. > > You can't keep adding new conditions and exceptions while > simultaneously still claiming your "rule of three" as a rule. Oh yes he can. This is how peddlars of woo operate. Make a grandiose claim, then gradually walk back the falsifiable bits of it until all thats left is handwave and claptrap. It's also Malcolms default (i.e. sole) mode of argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn1srrqhf9.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109897 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> 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 may miss a point you are interested in. They
illustrate my point very nicely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4711dcb3-3e37-4dfa-8964-18c215c44a03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109743 |
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 12:30:49 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > 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. > Exactly. My claim is a hard limit at three. I also claim that the softer observation that the limit is "about three" should be uncontentious. Only people who want to disagree for the sake of doing so will dispute that one. But the rule of three states that you must never create an expression with more than three levels of nested parentheses. > > 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. > Three is about the limit for indirection. A char ***ptr is about possible to handle, a char ****ptr and you're counting the asterisks. So the rule of three applies to indirection as well as to parentheses nesting. Which owing gto their underlying logical similarity, leads one to wonder if the limit is three for the same reasons. > > > 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. > Again, that's uncontentious, or should be. You can come up with 2D objects which are hard to visualise, just as you can write an unparseable (but humans) expression wth only one level of parentheses. But those objects are special objects. > 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? > I find it extraordinary that someone can admit that human psychology is geared up to a 3D world, then not see the connection with 3D arrays. > > 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. > We set a limit of 70 mph, and say that over that is always unsafe. Just as I set a limit of three levels of nesting, and say that above that is always confusing. > 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. > The level of nesting you can tolerate must be below the number of objects you can recognise without counting, surely? I can't prove that, you could set up an empirical experiment to show me wrong. But it would be a very surprising result, would it not. It could even make your name, if you could come up with a theoretical justification or explanation for that result. > > 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. > But it;s not a wild idea. Everyone here except me says that it is daft, but there could be social reasons for that. > 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. > No it isn't. > > 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. > No-one is saying that code which obeys the rule of three but disobeys other rules, e.g. the rule of two, is easy to understand. Just as no-one says that everyone travelling at under 70 mph is driving safely. The rule of three is an attempt to provide a hard limit which is useful, like the 70mph speed limit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of20ob$528$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109752 |
On 11/05/17 15:45, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 12:30:49 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> >> 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. >> > Exactly. My claim is a hard limit at three. I also claim that the softer observation > that the limit is "about three" should be uncontentious. Only people who want > to disagree for the sake of doing so will dispute that one. "My Freddy was the only one in the whole parade who was marching in step!" People aren't in disagreement about your claim. They all agree that it's wrong (except you). > But the rule of three states that you must never create an expression with > more than three levels of nested parentheses. The newsgroup is of one accord: The rule of three is greatly flawed; And though he seeks the final word, Yet Malcolm's voice remains unheard. Your determination to maintain such an indefensible position in the face of all the formidable opposition you have encountered suggests a certain tenacity of spirit, but that is its only virtue. > Three is about the limit for indirection. For Malcolm, perhaps, but not for other people. > I find it extraordinary that someone can admit that human psychology is > geared up to a 3D world, then not see the connection with 3D arrays. But is it a 3D world? Our eyes can only receive visual data in /two/ dimensions, and our brain has to fake up a third. And a fourth, because things move (so there is a time dimension, too). There's nothing special about 3. <speed limit analogy> > We set a limit of 70 mph, and say that over that is always unsafe. Except that it isn't. Have you never accelerated your way out of a dangerous situation on the motorway? > Just as I set a limit of three levels of nesting, and say that above that is > always confusing. Maybe to you, Malcolm. Maybe to you. > But it;s not a wild idea. Everyone here except me says that it is daft, but > there could be social reasons for that. Or it could just be that everyone here except you realises that it's daft. >> 1 + x*(4 + x*(6 + x*(4 + x)))) >> >> That is quite easy to comprehend, despite four levels of parenthesis. >> > No it isn't. Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) (Presumably it's part of a larger expression, hence the extra close-paren. Dammit, David!) > No-one is saying that code which obeys the rule of three but disobeys > other rules, e.g. the rule of two, is easy to understand. And what in the name of all that's holy is the rule of two? Or am I going to regret asking? > Just as no-one > says that everyone travelling at under 70 mph is driving safely. Nor is everyone travelling at over 70 mph driving dangerously. -- 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 | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877f1n5igk.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > The newsgroup is of one accord: > The rule of three is greatly flawed; > And though he seeks the final word, > Yet Malcolm's voice remains unheard. A problem with a fourth dimension, Has proved to be a source of tension, It seem that Malc is always bested By four degrees, however nested > And what in the name of all that's holy is the rule of two? Or am I > going to regret asking? "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web