Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #107910 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-08 22:17 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 07:42 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-04-09 07:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:42 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:25 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 22:56 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:18 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 14:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:18 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:53 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:48 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:36 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-20 13:24 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 08:05 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 15:32 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 11:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:41 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-09 13:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 22:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-10 09:12 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 08:22 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 18:28 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 17:49 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 11:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 20:33 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 13:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 21:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 22:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 18:46 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 21:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 23:09 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 12:40 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-11 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-26 10:38 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:51 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 13:14 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 10:42 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 19:04 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-14 21:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 19:05 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-26 12:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:55 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 00:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 18:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 18:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 00:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-10 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 08:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 08:58 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-11 09:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 16:46 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:02 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:59 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 21:40 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:17 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:37 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-06 00:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:49 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 13:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-06 20:23 -0600
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 21:51 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:09 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:18 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:13 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 15:10 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-07 16:47 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 21:08 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:59 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:28 -0500
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 10:16 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 02:41 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:36 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:06 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 14:03 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-09 19:41 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 21:35 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:25 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:48 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:23 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700
[OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200
Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000
Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 09:29 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-13 16:00 +0200
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:45 -0700
Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsoh9oq7.sbq.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #109755 |
On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to > > 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) Count the parentheses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of2o4j$qie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109787 |
On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: > On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >> >> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) > > Count the parentheses. I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in one too many. Check his original article. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of3sqr$ihr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109788 |
On 12/05/17 00:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: >> On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >>> >>> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) >> >> Count the parentheses. > > I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) > opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in > one too many. Check his original article. > It was still easy to comprehend, even though it had 3½ pairs of parentheses - which is still more than 3 :-) Comprehension is not the same as "getting the count of close brackets correct". Tools will help you get that right - they won't help you figure out what an expression /means/ so that's the important bit. (Still, it was an unfortunate mistake. You are too honest, Richard - you could have silently corrected it when quoting the post!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of3t82$jpj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109812 |
On 12/05/17 09:50, David Brown wrote: > On 12/05/17 00:24, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/05/17 23:15, Ike Naar wrote: >>> On 2017-05-11, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Yes, it is. It's a simple polynomial expression. It expands to >>>> >>>> 1 + 4x + 6x^2 + 4x^3 + x^4) >>> >>> Count the parentheses. >> >> I did. David (rather unfortunately, given the nature of the discussion) >> opened three parentheses and closed all four of them. That is, he put in >> one too many. Check his original article. >> > > It was still easy to comprehend, even though it had 3½ pairs of > parentheses - which is still more than 3 :-) > > Comprehension is not the same as "getting the count of close brackets > correct". Tools will help you get that right - they won't help you > figure out what an expression /means/ so that's the important bit. > > (Still, it was an unfortunate mistake. You are too honest, Richard - > you could have silently corrected it when quoting the post!) Father, I cannot tell a lie - it was *him*! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oevt52$cms$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109680 |
On 5/10/2017 11:36 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 10/05/17 16:54, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 5/10/2017 9:51 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 10/05/17 14:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 5/10/2017 8:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> The theory is that the reason we can visualise three levels of >>>>>> parentheses >>>>>> nesting, but n more, is the same as the reason we can visualise a cube >>>>>> but >>>>>> not a 4d geometrical object. >>>>> >>>>> That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to >>>>> be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such >>>>> results, you would have cited them long ago. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually, it is a theory. >>> >>> In the vernacular sense, at most. >>> >>> In science, it is at best a hypothesis. Somewhat to my surprise, >>> Wikipedia agrees with me: "A common misconception is that scientific >>> theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into >>> scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated." >>> >>> I think you have fallen into that very trap. >>> >>> But we are getting very far from the point, and in any case I see no >>> value in debating this with you, given your debating track record. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >> >> There is the truth, and there is Wikipedia. Sometimes the two agree, >> but not in this case. How about a respected source - Merriam-Webster: >> > > How about reading what Richard wrote - it is a theory "in the vernacular > sense at most". That matches fine with Wikipedia's accurate definition > of what a theory is in a scientific sense, and also matches fine with > your dictionary definition about how the word is often used. > I read it, and I quote: "That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such results, you would have cited them long ago." That is the comment I replied to. > Malcolm's claims of evidence, "powerful theoretical explanations", > discussions of brain "pathways", etc., suggest that he believes he has a > /scientific/ theory. Clearly, he does not have anything close to that - > he has wild speculation and unsubstantiated extrapolation from a vaguely > related scenario. > > Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, when published, built on > substantial evidence - it was based on solid physics from physicists > like Galileo, Lorentz and Maxwell, clear mathematics, and astronomical > evidence. > I was talking about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - not the subset Special Theory. But the General Theory was not proven until 1919 when, during a solar eclipse, Sir Author Eddington proved gravity bends light. This proof made Einstein a celebrity almost overnight. > Malcolm's "theory of three" is based on, well, nothing at all. On a > scale of quality of scientific theory, it comes in slightly below Last > Thursdayism, though not nearly as thought-provoking. > > I never said anything about the quality or basis of Malcolm's theory. But it does qualify as a theory -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45535e90-5af5-4b6b-8fbc-66933b293459@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109661 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:41:24 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/05/17 13:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > Psychology is notorious for getting results which are repeatable and > > statistically significant, but don't generalise to anything outside the > > lab. For example Skinner's associates worked out the exact cage dimensions > > and severity of electric shock which created optimal learning in a rat > > on key-pressing tasks. However rats don't live in cages in the wild. > > Are you suggesting that this is the right way to construct an experiment > to test your "rule of three" hypothesis? I can see a number of practical > objections. > We need to first devise a reading test whereby, for example, simple mathematical expressions have to be parsed. We'd expect performance to drop off as expression complexity increases. But what does the graph look like? Is it linear, or is there a precipitate drop at a given level of complexity? If you can show that three levels of nested parentheses are critical, by devising many expressions and timing and marking responses, then we're in business. There's something about three which represents a threshold. However that's a likely result from mere common sense. After three levels it's starting to get tricky. Then you have to explore why. That's harder. The theory is that the same pathways used to visualise 3D objects are being used to visualise levels of nesting. So can we find some brain-damaged patients who can no longer visualise 3D objects? Can they visualise three levels of nesting? If they can, the "3D world" theory is looking dubious. If they can't, we've failed to falsify it, but there are lots of alternative explanations. > > That's not a theory. It's an assertion. To be a theory, it would have to > be backed up by rigorous experimental results. If there were such > results, you would have cited them long ago. > It's a hypothesis, if you want to nit-pick about terminology. OTOH it connects with theory - we know that people can do what they need to survive in the world around them. So we can't detect high-pitched sounds, because we aren't vulnerable to predation by the animals that make them, nor do they form a significant part of our diet. Unlike insects which can often detect bat calls and take evasive action. > > I did, and I know that the people who dispute are not eccentrics. If you > read what /I/ said, you might find out who I was suggesting was the > eccentric. > "Eccentric" just means "originated the idea". > > You have yet to offer a very powerful theoretical explanation. Perhaps > your conceptualisation of "very powerful" is at odds with that of others > here. For us, "because Malcolm says so" is not a very powerful > theoretical explanation. > The world is three dimensional and we have to navigate around in it. That's one of the primary features of psychology. It's not a mild effect. Of course only a few people have to parse expressions with parentheses in them, and in a way it's quite remarkable that we can do this at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da0c431f-2201-461d-9c57-49e0a9efe5db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109654 |
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:45:13 AM UTC-5, Richard Heathfield wrote: > When the alternative is "no C compiler", they are indeed desirable. > What's absurd about that? (Yes, I have worked on systems where the > choice was C with trigraphs or no C at all.) Really? Can you elaborate? There is only one character that can be generated with trigraphs that could not have a backslash-escape defined for it, and that would be the backslash itself. Are there any systems where that could not be accommodated simply by saying that an implementation that cannot produce a character that which typographically resembles a backslash may substitute any printable character not in the C character set, provided that it documents such substitution? On e.g. a Commodore 64, an implementation might specify that a "backslash" looks like £ [that happens to be the glyph that shows for character code 92, which in ASCII would be a backslash]. Alternatively, if e.g. \* were an escape for #, the Standard could specify that if the first character of a source file is a printing character not in the C character set and the remainder of the first line is "*define __BACKSLASH" [including the asterisk, but not quotes] an implementation should regard the first character as a backslash for the remainder of the file. Is there any reason either approach would be inferior to using trigraphs? Note that unlike trigraphs neither approach would render any otherwise- valid program invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7f1nu2v6.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109558 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 5:54:36 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 2:10:26 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> No, I believe you have (again) missed the point. The idea of "de >>>> gustibus" is a balance - "In matters of taste, there can be no >>>> disputes". It applies to arguments like emacs vs. vim, or which brace >>>> style is "best" in C, or if you should use underscores or camelCaps in >>>> identifiers. >>> >>> Many things can be objectively tested, but you need a university >>> psychology department to do it. [...] >> >> This statement displays an attitude that IMCO is totally >> wrongheaded. In particular it implicitly suggests a false >> dichotomy: either conduct perfect experiments, or conduct >> no experiments at all. For starters there is no such thing >> as a perfect experiment, but even allowing that some are >> much better than others, second- or third-rate experiments >> still yield /some/ information, and that information may be >> enough to draw a useful conclusion. The alternative, >> performing no experiments, yields zero information. This >> path gives rise to the "it's just personal preference" >> attitude, a lame excuse if ever there was one. No weight >> should be given to the opinions of people who don't make >> an effort to inform their opinion with factual evidence. >> >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better >> than no experiment at all. Do the best experiments you can, >> and encourage others to do likewise. Let's break the cycle >> of endless heated debates that cannot be resolved, by virtue >> of resting on the pathetic foundation that "it's just my >> (wilfully uninformed) opinion". > > You can set yourself up as an amateur psychologist if you > want. But you're likely to make all of the common mistakes > such as not hiding the purpose of the experiment from the > subjects and thus getting what subjects think you want rather > than the true results. [...] De malcolmus non est disputandum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpoff755h.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109740 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> De malcolmus non est disputandum
"De gustibus non est disputandum".
There's no point in arguing with Gus.
--
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 | Manfred <noname@invalid.add> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <of4o74$unm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #109740 |
On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: <snip> > > De malcolmus non est disputandum > /Ipse dixit/ :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <of4s96$43s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109848 |
On 12/05/17 17:34, Manfred wrote: > On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > <snip> >> >> De malcolmus non est disputandum >> > /Ipse dixit/ :) Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. -- 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 | 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny3u0sq0k.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109850 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 12/05/17 17:34, Manfred wrote: >> On 05/11/2017 12:03 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> De malcolmus non est disputandum >> >> /Ipse dixit/ :) > > Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur. Sir, I bear a rhyme excelling In mystic force and magic spelling Celestial sprites elucidate All my own striving can't relate...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <59119529.1122171@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109515 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the > efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. > No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better > than no experiment at all. That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been "scientifically proven". Just look at Jenny McCarthy *spit* for the results of that. However, this is not such a case. Even if the experiment - letting professional programmers, /en masse/, decide whether C's for statement is useful or not - is not top-notch, the verdict is so overwhelmingly positive that you'd need some very hard evidence to overturn it. And that evidence is not forthcoming - barring a few outliers who insist that their personal taste is strong proof. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfno9v2t5gy.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #109571 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better >> than no experiment at all. > > That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to > the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been > "scientifically proven". [...] Even a carefully constructed experiment might lead one astray, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There is still an advantage to having done the experiment, in that it can be part of a subsequent rational discussion. If no experiment has been done then things often get stuck in unresolvable debate, or end with the all-too-familiar "agree to disagree" (and don't get me started on that). You're right that the results of doing an experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better than not doing them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a4e8867-2e62-4af7-813c-5e9ea03243a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #109600 |
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > > >> Five hundred years of experience has demonstrated the > >> efficacy of empirical observation and the scientific method. > >> No experiment is perfect. Even a poor experiment is better > >> than no experiment at all. > > > > That is not actually true. A poor experiment can easily lead to > > the wrong conclusion, which is then accepted because it has been > > "scientifically proven". [...] > > Even a carefully constructed experiment might lead one astray, > and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. There is still an > advantage to having done the experiment, in that it can be part > of a subsequent rational discussion. If no experiment has been > done then things often get stuck in unresolvable debate, or end > with the all-too-familiar "agree to disagree" (and don't get me > started on that). You're right that the results of doing an > experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that > shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better > than not doing them. > A lot of science is descriptive rather than experimental. Psychologists tend to try to make their subject experimental, but closely allied subjects like sociology and economics are more descriptive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <591225cf.374171@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #109603 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 4:28:20 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > You're right that the results of doing an > > experiment may be worse than not having done it. But that > > shouldn't change the attitude that doing experiments is better > > than not doing them. > > > A lot of science is descriptive rather than experimental. Psychologists > tend to try to make their subject experimental, but closely allied > subjects like sociology and economics are more descriptive. Pfft. Sociology is barely a science, and economics is closer to fraud. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web