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 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87pofcegog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| 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 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.
Example 'A' tests parsing of nesting, surely? Did find that one easy at
a glance? It's the only one that *is* limited to three levels (all the
others have four) yet it's the only one I *can't* do!
Anyway, these example may well miss your point, but they make mine quite
well. The trouble is that the only way I can determine your point is to
consider what you said and that seemed to be that three was a hard limit
for checking nesting at a glance -- hard like the transition is
visualising object when going from three geometric dimensions to four.
If your point is really "three is a rather soft limit (neither an upper
nor a lower bound) and only applies in the absence of other cues like
the types of brackets, alignment and/or symmetry" then I doubt there
would have been anything like the reaction, but then it would not be a
"rule of three" and I think you are committed to that view of it in a
way that is independent of evidence.
> 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.
That's not the best wast to test a scientific hypothesis. Better to
look for examples, like mine, to see of it can be refuted. Supporting
evidence (particularly one case) is s limited value, but one sound
counter-example means you need to revisit the claim.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb2dca67-a342-4cc3-bf18-4319ee01daae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109902 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > Example 'A' tests parsing of nesting, surely? Did find that one easy at > a glance? It's the only one that *is* limited to three levels (all the > others have four) yet it's the only one I *can't* do! > No, it tests recognition of symmetry. A different task to parsing nesting, except when the nesting is symmetrical. As in fact does E, in a disguised form. > > Anyway, these example may well miss your point, but they make mine quite > well. The trouble is that the only way I can determine your point is to > consider what you said and that seemed to be that three was a hard limit > for checking nesting at a glance -- hard like the transition is > visualising object when going from three geometric dimensions to four. > > If your point is really "three is a rather soft limit (neither an upper > nor a lower bound) and only applies in the absence of other cues like > the types of brackets, alignment and/or symmetry" then I doubt there > would have been anything like the reaction, but then it would not be a > "rule of three" and I think you are committed to that view of it in a > way that is independent of evidence. > It doesn't apply for a few contrived situations, or where other cues are used (as in example E). > > > 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. > > That's not the best wast to test a scientific hypothesis. Better to > look for examples, like mine, to see of it can be refuted. Supporting > evidence (particularly one case) is s limited value, but one sound > counter-example means you need to revisit the claim. > Accidents are are very good way of advancing science. You've pointed out that where you have symmetry, rule of three doesn't apply. Fair enough. You can also remember a 100 digit number if it happens to be 12345678901234..., that observation is maybe worthwhile, but is of no use for devising PIN codes. If your refuting cases are just special cases or limits like that, the theory stands, more or less - no one is claiming that we have a perfect understanding of human psychology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7691584c-ed42-48e9-8227-db0411513d2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109910 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:01:25 PM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Example 'A' tests parsing of nesting, surely? Did find that one easy at > > a glance? It's the only one that *is* limited to three levels (all the > > others have four) yet it's the only one I *can't* do! > > > No, it tests recognition of symmetry. A different task to parsing > nesting, except when the nesting is symmetrical. > As in fact does E, in a disguised form. > > > > Anyway, these example may well miss your point, but they make mine quite > > well. The trouble is that the only way I can determine your point is to > > consider what you said and that seemed to be that three was a hard limit > > for checking nesting at a glance -- hard like the transition is > > visualising object when going from three geometric dimensions to four. > > > > If your point is really "three is a rather soft limit (neither an upper > > nor a lower bound) and only applies in the absence of other cues like > > the types of brackets, alignment and/or symmetry" then I doubt there > > would have been anything like the reaction, but then it would not be a > > "rule of three" and I think you are committed to that view of it in a > > way that is independent of evidence. > > > It doesn't apply for a few contrived situations, or where other cues > are used (as in example E). > > > > > 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. > > > > That's not the best wast to test a scientific hypothesis. Better to > > look for examples, like mine, to see of it can be refuted. Supporting > > evidence (particularly one case) is s limited value, but one sound > > counter-example means you need to revisit the claim. > > > Accidents are are very good way of advancing science. > You've pointed out that where you have symmetry, rule of three > doesn't apply. Fair enough. You can also remember a 100 digit number > if it happens to be 12345678901234..., that observation is maybe > worthwhile, but is of no use for devising PIN codes. > > If your refuting cases are just special cases or limits like that, > the theory stands, more or less - no one is claiming that we have a > perfect understanding of human psychology. In natural language parsing (of English) one often ends up with a dozen or more closing parentheses at the end of sentence. SGML recognized this and since its "parentheses" are named SGML allowed closing an outer parenthesis to close all the inner parentheses as well. But named bracketing is NOT part of C and it is not easy to see how C could be extended to include them. I believe no version of HTML acts like SGML in this respect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <675365c9-9c3e-4f04-8669-d5eb2ca214a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109917 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 11:23:45 PM UTC+1, David Kleinecke wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:01:25 PM UTC-7, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > Example 'A' tests parsing of nesting, surely? Did find that one easy at > > > a glance? It's the only one that *is* limited to three levels (all the > > > others have four) yet it's the only one I *can't* do! > > > > > No, it tests recognition of symmetry. A different task to parsing > > nesting, except when the nesting is symmetrical. > > As in fact does E, in a disguised form. > > > > > > Anyway, these example may well miss your point, but they make mine quite > > > well. The trouble is that the only way I can determine your point is to > > > consider what you said and that seemed to be that three was a hard limit > > > for checking nesting at a glance -- hard like the transition is > > > visualising object when going from three geometric dimensions to four. > > > > > > If your point is really "three is a rather soft limit (neither an upper > > > nor a lower bound) and only applies in the absence of other cues like > > > the types of brackets, alignment and/or symmetry" then I doubt there > > > would have been anything like the reaction, but then it would not be a > > > "rule of three" and I think you are committed to that view of it in a > > > way that is independent of evidence. > > > > > It doesn't apply for a few contrived situations, or where other cues > > are used (as in example E). > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > That's not the best wast to test a scientific hypothesis. Better to > > > look for examples, like mine, to see of it can be refuted. Supporting > > > evidence (particularly one case) is s limited value, but one sound > > > counter-example means you need to revisit the claim. > > > > > Accidents are are very good way of advancing science. > > You've pointed out that where you have symmetry, rule of three > > doesn't apply. Fair enough. You can also remember a 100 digit number > > if it happens to be 12345678901234..., that observation is maybe > > worthwhile, but is of no use for devising PIN codes. > > > > If your refuting cases are just special cases or limits like that, > > the theory stands, more or less - no one is claiming that we have a > > perfect understanding of human psychology. > > In natural language parsing (of English) one often ends > up with a dozen or more closing parentheses at the end of > sentence. SGML recognized this and since its "parentheses" > are named SGML allowed closing an outer parenthesis to close > all the inner parentheses as well. > > But named bracketing is NOT part of C and it is not easy to > see how C could be extended to include them. > > I believe no version of HTML acts like SGML in this respect. > An example that has been used in the literature is "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" . It's supposedly a valid English sentence, applying naive mechanistic parsing rules. 1) The city of Buffalo, New York; 2) The verb (uncommon in usage) to buffalo, meaning "to bully, harass, or intimidate" or "to baffle"; 3) The animal, bison (often called buffalo in North America). Of course it's not an acceptable sentence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure |
| Message-ID | <87vap3bsab.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #109937 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > An example that has been used in the literature is "Buffalo buffalo > Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" . It's supposedly > a valid English sentence, applying naive mechanistic parsing rules. Then there is the sign painter who picked too small a board for "The Pig and Whistle" and so ended up omitting the space between 'Pig' and 'and' and 'and' and 'Whistle'. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure |
| Message-ID | <of9ibc$3j2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109939 |
On 14/05/17 12:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > <snip> >> An example that has been used in the literature is "Buffalo buffalo >> Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" . It's supposedly >> a valid English sentence, applying naive mechanistic parsing rules. > > Then there is the sign painter who picked too small a board for "The Pig > and Whistle" and so ended up omitting the space between 'Pig' and 'and' > and 'and' and 'Whistle'. "Welland and Anderson" gives you thirteen consecutive 'and's. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure |
| Message-ID | <of9nfo$ka7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109940 |
On 14/05/17 14:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 14/05/17 12:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> <snip> >>> An example that has been used in the literature is "Buffalo buffalo >>> Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" . It's supposedly >>> a valid English sentence, applying naive mechanistic parsing rules. >> >> Then there is the sign painter who picked too small a board for "The Pig >> and Whistle" and so ended up omitting the space between 'Pig' and 'and' >> and 'and' and 'Whistle'. > > "Welland and Anderson" gives you thirteen consecutive 'and's. > Punctuate the following: Ben where Petter had had had had had had had had had had had the examiners approval I can think of four correct answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure |
| Message-ID | <of9uhm$c5i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109949 |
On 14/05/17 14:56, David Brown wrote: > On 14/05/17 14:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 14/05/17 12:18, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> <snip> >>>> An example that has been used in the literature is "Buffalo buffalo >>>> Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" . It's supposedly >>>> a valid English sentence, applying naive mechanistic parsing rules. >>> >>> Then there is the sign painter who picked too small a board for "The Pig >>> and Whistle" and so ended up omitting the space between 'Pig' and 'and' >>> and 'and' and 'Whistle'. >> >> "Welland and Anderson" gives you thirteen consecutive 'and's. >> > > Punctuate the following: > > Ben where Petter had had had had had had had had had had had the > examiners approval > > I can think of four correct answers. Here are a couple of dozen. (And I can think of plenty more, but this isn't exactly about C, is it?) Ben, where Petter [who is Petter?] had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners' approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". "Had had" had had the examiners' approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the examiners' approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the examiners' approval. Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". "Had had" had had the examiner's approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the examiners' approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". "Had had" had had the examiners' approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the examiner's approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; "had had" had had the examiners' approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; "had had" had had the examiners' approval! Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had". Had "had had" had the examiner's approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". Had "had had" had the examiner's approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had". Had "had had" had the examiners' approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had". Had "had had" had the examiners' approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; had "had had" had the examiner's approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; had "had had" had the examiner's approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had", had had "had had"; had "had had" had the examiners' approval? Ben, where Petter had had "had had", had had "had"; had "had had" had the examiners' approval? -- 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 | 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lgq0ckrn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #109910 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 7:48:54 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> Example 'A' tests parsing of nesting, surely? Did find that one easy at >> a glance? It's the only one that *is* limited to three levels (all the >> others have four) yet it's the only one I *can't* do! >> > No, it tests recognition of symmetry. A different task to parsing > nesting, except when the nesting is symmetrical. Eh? 'A' had no symmetry. It's purpose was to show that your claim is problematic at both ends -- it does not have more than three levels of nesting yet I can't check it at a glance. <snip> >> If your point is really "three is a rather soft limit (neither an upper >> nor a lower bound) and only applies in the absence of other cues like >> the types of brackets, alignment and/or symmetry" then I doubt there >> would have been anything like the reaction, but then it would not be a >> "rule of three" and I think you are committed to that view of it in a >> way that is independent of evidence. >> > It doesn't apply for a few contrived situations, or where other cues > are used (as in example E). You mean as in many computer programs? It was supposed to be a programming rule was it not? <snip> > You've pointed out that where you have symmetry, rule of three > doesn't apply. Only two of the examples had symmetry. Remember the cases where the "other cues" defeat the rule. > Fair enough. You can also remember a 100 digit number > if it happens to be 12345678901234..., that observation is maybe > worthwhile, but is of no use for devising PIN codes. But it's a good counter-example to an overly broad claim. Unfortunately, counter-examples abound in the field in which you originally proposed the rule. > If your refuting cases are just special cases or limits like that, > the theory stands, more or less - no one is claiming that we have a > perfect understanding of human psychology. The theory behind the claim was about brain structure and a three dimensional world and that's looking very peaky right now. I'm stuffed when I try to imagine a four dimensional object, no matter how much symmetry it has. Even the most symmetrical -- a 4D sphere -- is beyond me. If these evolved brain structures can be helped to manage four, five or more levels of nesting just by adding a little symmetry, why can't they be so helped for a four- or five-dimensional object? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109923 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:03:31 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > The theory behind the claim was about brain structure and a three > dimensional world and that's looking very peaky right now. I'm stuffed > when I try to imagine a four dimensional object, no matter how much > symmetry it has. Even the most symmetrical -- a 4D sphere -- is beyond > me. If these evolved brain structures can be helped to manage four, > five or more levels of nesting just by adding a little symmetry, why > can't they be so helped for a four- or five-dimensional object? > Probably they can. You'd have to consider how to construct a 4D array so that you can represent int in two dimensions, with a vertical plane of symmetry. Then see if it can be "groked" However the 3 levels of nesting / three dimensions of space connection is only speculative. You'd have to consider how to test it. Note David Brown (who, we confirmed, can only "grok" three levels of parentheses) claimed to be able to play 4D noughts and crosses. That's another counter-example, but going the opposite way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of9j8m$6mj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109936 |
On 14/05/17 11:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:03:31 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> The theory behind the claim was about brain structure and a three >> dimensional world and that's looking very peaky right now. I'm stuffed >> when I try to imagine a four dimensional object, no matter how much >> symmetry it has. Even the most symmetrical -- a 4D sphere -- is beyond >> me. If these evolved brain structures can be helped to manage four, >> five or more levels of nesting just by adding a little symmetry, why >> can't they be so helped for a four- or five-dimensional object? >> > Probably they can. > You'd have to consider how to construct a 4D array so that you can represent > int in two dimensions, with a vertical plane of symmetry. Then see if it > can be "groked" > > However the 3 levels of nesting / three dimensions of space connection is only > speculative. You'd have to consider how to test it. Note David Brown (who, we > confirmed, can only "grok" three levels of parentheses) No, we confirmed no such thing. All we confirmed is that he may have quoted code from a larger expression, or he may have made a typographical error. Besides, if you rely on that typo to enable you to rely on that example to enable you to defend your "rule of three", bear in mind that whoever it was who noticed the problem (name omitted to spare the blushes of the brilliant) clearly can manage a higher number of dimensions, or he wouldn't have spotted the problem. > claimed to be able > to play 4D noughts and crosses. That's another counter-example, but going > the opposite way. I have no doubt whatsoever that David can play 4D 0x0. I've played it myself. It's not difficult. Here are some 0x0 boards for you: 0D: (Nothing to see here) ------------------------------ 1D: | | (think three rooms on a corridor) ------------------------------ 2D: _|_|_ _|_|_ | | (think three corridors) ------------------------------ 3D: _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ | | * | | * | | (think three floors) ------------------------------ 4D: _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ | | * | | * | | _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ | | * | | * | | _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ | | * | | * | | (think three buildings on a street) ------------------------------ Then think three streets. Three villages. Etc. You can keep adding levels for a surprisingly long time. -- 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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of9og6$nl5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109942 |
On 14/05/17 14:44, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 14/05/17 11:08, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 2:03:31 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>> >> >>> The theory behind the claim was about brain structure and a three >>> dimensional world and that's looking very peaky right now. I'm stuffed >>> when I try to imagine a four dimensional object, no matter how much >>> symmetry it has. Even the most symmetrical -- a 4D sphere -- is beyond >>> me. If these evolved brain structures can be helped to manage four, >>> five or more levels of nesting just by adding a little symmetry, why >>> can't they be so helped for a four- or five-dimensional object? >>> >> Probably they can. >> You'd have to consider how to construct a 4D array so that you can >> represent >> int in two dimensions, with a vertical plane of symmetry. Then see if it >> can be "groked" >> >> However the 3 levels of nesting / three dimensions of space connection >> is only >> speculative. You'd have to consider how to test it. Note David Brown >> (who, we >> confirmed, can only "grok" three levels of parentheses) > > No, we confirmed no such thing. All we confirmed is that he may have > quoted code from a larger expression, or he may have made a > typographical error. Besides, if you rely on that typo to enable you to > rely on that example to enable you to defend your "rule of three", bear > in mind that whoever it was who noticed the problem (name omitted to > spare the blushes of the brilliant) clearly can manage a higher number > of dimensions, or he wouldn't have spotted the problem. It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. > >> claimed to be able >> to play 4D noughts and crosses. That's another counter-example, but going >> the opposite way. > > I have no doubt whatsoever that David can play 4D 0x0. I've played it > myself. It's not difficult. > > Here are some 0x0 boards for you: > > 0D: In 0D, the board is no dimensions of size 1. It would be a point, and the first player wins. > > (Nothing to see here) > ------------------------------ > 1D: > > | | Here you should have one dimension of size 2, and it will therefore always be a cat's game. > > (think three rooms on a corridor) > ------------------------------ > 2D: > > _|_|_ > _|_|_ > | | > > (think three corridors) That one is correct. Your aim is a line of 3 in one of the two dimensions, or diagonals. > ------------------------------ > 3D: > > > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > | | * | | * | | > > (think three floors) It is far too easy for the first person to win here, every time. So for 3D noughts and crosses, use a 4 x 4 x 4 board. > ------------------------------ > 4D: > > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > | | * | | * | | > > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > | | * | | * | | > > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > _|_|_ * _|_|_ * _|_|_ > | | * | | * | | > > > (think three buildings on a street) > ------------------------------ And here it should be 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 to avoid trivial wins for the first player. Streets of buildings is an asymmetric image. It is a little better to think of floors in a building again, but where your choice of stacking varies with different points of view. With four dimensions, it does stretch your imagination. Some of the diagonals are particularly hard to spot, but with practice it can be done. Some squared paper and a couple of coloured pens is all you need. > > > Then think three streets. Three villages. Etc. You can keep adding > levels for a surprisingly long time. > 5D needs 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6, and with 7776 cells it. I have tried that a couple of times, but it was too difficult to track. I'm sure it would be possible with enough practice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bce2052-49ae-4a97-99eb-9e6ea6333aa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109951 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no > fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us > - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. > The fact that the typo slipped through means that you can't have been able to match the parentheses by fluent reading. There are other strategies you can use. And it's certainly true that we can devise expressions with only two levels of nesting which can't be parsed by fluent reading. But the example had no point of complexity, other than being non-symmetrical. You may be able to train yourself to visualise 4D noughts and crosses. If so it's an interesting trick, but it's interesting because normally we can't visualise or than three dimensions. The exceptions prove (test) the rule.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ecd6545-dfdb-43b9-a8c5-4f31acb30d18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109957 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > > > It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no > > fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us > > - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. > > > The fact that the typo slipped through means that you can't have > been able to match the parentheses by fluent reading. > There are other strategies you can use. And it's certainly true > that we can devise expressions with only two levels of nesting > which can't be parsed by fluent reading. But the example had no > point of complexity, other than being non-symmetrical. > > You may be able to train yourself to visualise 4D noughts and > crosses. If so it's an interesting trick, but it's interesting > because normally we can't visualise or than three dimensions. > The exceptions prove (test) the rule. There is a book by C. H. Hinton with an elaborate set of colored cubes to help visualize a 4D cube. I found the book interesting to read. But without having the set of cubes to play with, I didn't really do the work he prescribes and was not surprised not to receive the full benefit. The projection of a rotating 4D cube is quite fascinating. https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/83152/rotate-a-hypercube/83318#83318
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed82dad9-4019-4b50-81a9-cf142342c73b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109965 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:52:59 PM UTC+1, luser droog wrote: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > > > > > It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no > > > fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us > > > - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. > > > > > The fact that the typo slipped through means that you can't have > > been able to match the parentheses by fluent reading. > > There are other strategies you can use. And it's certainly true > > that we can devise expressions with only two levels of nesting > > which can't be parsed by fluent reading. But the example had no > > point of complexity, other than being non-symmetrical. > > > > You may be able to train yourself to visualise 4D noughts and > > crosses. If so it's an interesting trick, but it's interesting > > because normally we can't visualise or than three dimensions. > > The exceptions prove (test) the rule. > > There is a book by C. H. Hinton with an elaborate set of colored > cubes to help visualize a 4D cube. I found the book interesting > to read. But without having the set of cubes to play with, I > didn't really do the work he prescribes and was not surprised not > to receive the full benefit. > > The projection of a rotating 4D cube is quite fascinating. > https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/83152/rotate-a- > hypercube/83318#83318 > So by Ben's logic, 3 dimensions isn't a "hard limit". There's nothing special about three, because we can visualise a coloured hypercube but not a 100x100x100 voxel image of an apple written out as 1s and zeroes in a straight line. But whilst we can't absolutely prove that that isn't the case, it's desperately unlikely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ofa1it$miu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109967 |
On 14/05/17 17:16, Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> > So by Ben's logic, 3 dimensions isn't a "hard limit". There's > nothing special about three, because we can visualise a coloured > hypercube but not a 100x100x100 voxel image of an apple > written out as 1s and zeroes in a straight line. No, I don't think that's Ben's reasoning at all. I think Ben reasons that there is no hard limit (which doesn't mean there isn't a limit, but it will vary according to the circumstances and according to who is reading the code). This seems like a very sensible position. > But whilst we can't absolutely prove that that isn't the case, > it's desperately unlikely. No, what's desperately unlikely is that the "rule of three" has any value as a guide to programming style. -- 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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwp9jp2ir.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109967 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:52:59 PM UTC+1, luser droog wrote: >> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no >>>> fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us >>>> - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. >>> >>> The fact that the typo slipped through means that you can't have >>> been able to match the parentheses by fluent reading. >>> There are other strategies you can use. And it's certainly true >>> that we can devise expressions with only two levels of nesting >>> which can't be parsed by fluent reading. But the example had no >>> point of complexity, other than being non-symmetrical. >>> >>> You may be able to train yourself to visualise 4D noughts and >>> crosses. If so it's an interesting trick, but it's interesting >>> because normally we can't visualise or than three dimensions. >>> The exceptions prove (test) the rule. >> >> There is a book by C. H. Hinton with an elaborate set of colored >> cubes to help visualize a 4D cube. I found the book interesting >> to read. But without having the set of cubes to play with, I >> didn't really do the work he prescribes and was not surprised not >> to receive the full benefit. >> >> The projection of a rotating 4D cube is quite fascinating. >> https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/83152/rotate-a- >> hypercube/83318#83318 > > So by Ben's logic, 3 dimensions isn't a "hard limit". [...] The "logic" in question comes from you, not Ben. AFAIK you are the only one who thinks there is any relationship between the dimensionality of space (either physical or visual) and what depth of nesting can be seen easily. > But while we can't absolutely prove that that isn't the case, > it's desperately unlikely. It's hard to take what you say seriously when it sounds like you yourself don't even know what you mean. And AFAICT, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 01:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <044bf7ed-1086-4d41-85f7-eeff4d540aea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109984 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:11:30 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 4:52:59 PM UTC+1, luser droog wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:04:11 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 3:13:41 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > >>> > >>>> It was a typo - no more, no less. That also shows that there is no > >>>> fixed limit between what we can easily understand, and what is beyond us > >>>> - there is a long grey area with a varying chance of errors. > >>> > >>> The fact that the typo slipped through means that you can't have > >>> been able to match the parentheses by fluent reading. > >>> There are other strategies you can use. And it's certainly true > >>> that we can devise expressions with only two levels of nesting > >>> which can't be parsed by fluent reading. But the example had no > >>> point of complexity, other than being non-symmetrical. > >>> > >>> You may be able to train yourself to visualise 4D noughts and > >>> crosses. If so it's an interesting trick, but it's interesting > >>> because normally we can't visualise or than three dimensions. > >>> The exceptions prove (test) the rule. > >> > >> There is a book by C. H. Hinton with an elaborate set of colored > >> cubes to help visualize a 4D cube. I found the book interesting > >> to read. But without having the set of cubes to play with, I > >> didn't really do the work he prescribes and was not surprised not > >> to receive the full benefit. > >> > >> The projection of a rotating 4D cube is quite fascinating. > >> https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/83152/rotate-a- > >> hypercube/83318#83318 > > > > So by Ben's logic, 3 dimensions isn't a "hard limit". [...] > > The "logic" in question comes from you, not Ben. AFAIK you > are the only one who thinks there is any relationship between > the dimensionality of space (either physical or visual) and > what depth of nesting can be seen easily. > I originated the rule of three and the associated theory that the reason the number is three is because there are three dimensions to physical objects, and nesting (arrays of arrays of arrays) and dimensions are connected. So of course the idea goes through a stage where only one person believes it. However Ben produced counter-examples, examples of matched parentheses which can easily be parsed at a glance. However they were mostly symmetrical. Now you could say "OK, that's still an exception, the hard limit of three is meaningless". But we also have examples of "grok" able 4D structures, e.g. the cube with colour cues. So, if we accept Ben's counter examples, we must also accept the 4D counter examples. But who is going to accept that there's nothing special about human ability to visualise and three dimensions? > > > But while we can't absolutely prove that that isn't the case, > > it's desperately unlikely. > > It's hard to take what you say seriously when it sounds like > you yourself don't even know what you mean. And AFAICT, you > don't. > Of course I do. The rule of three means humans can parse up to three levels of nested parentheses at a glance, buy flunet reading, of "grokking". Any more than that, and they have to use other strategies, like counting. So three's your limit. Here's Ben's example, with the cheating taken out. (defun f (x y z) (when (equal (sum x y z) 42) (print x) ) ) You can't tell whether that is well formed or not at a glance. You can say it's not cheating because Lisp programmers really do resort to that type of formatting. In fact they also use special software support to write the programs. So we've moved from human-understandable source code. A machine of course can match any amount of nesting until its stack runs out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 11:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bmqu8k2q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #110005 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: <snip> > Here's Ben's example, with the cheating taken out. > > (defun f (x y z) (when (equal (sum x y z) 42) (print x) ) ) What an extraordinary way of looking at the world you have. The point of the example is to show that the rule, as stated, is inadequate. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web