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 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 13:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5919ab3e.20227687@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #110005 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > But who is going to accept that there's nothing > special about human ability to visualise and three dimensions? Straw man - nobody's arguing that. What we're telling you is that your _next_ step is bogus: the three-dimensionality of the world has bugger-all to do with the number of parentheses we can follow. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn37c6p6t8.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #110005 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 10:11:30 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> [...] >> 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. [...] That isn't how it looks from where I sit. Including after your explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ofag4q$kn9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109957 |
On 14/05/17 17:04, 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. It means I didn't read it at all - I only wrote it. (Yes, it is entirely possible to write things without reading them - I do it regularly.) > 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. It is not /that/ hard. It is a more a demonstration of the nerdiness of my teenage years than of any unusual visualisation skills. > The exceptions prove (test) the rule. > Well, exactly. All these exceptions have proven that there is no "rule of three".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1srr5emu.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #109957 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> 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.
That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
--
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 | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3394f70240f64bb98ad12@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #109936 |
In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... > > 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. Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 02:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #110829 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-04 20:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.339e761f4962faf598ad56@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #110930 |
In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, > > > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, > > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. > > > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from > book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester > then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. > > If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble with this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 01:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f28a666-b1a8-432a-b577-cac89958dc38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111504 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:55:50 AM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... > > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > > > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, > > > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. > > > > > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from > > book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester > > then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. > > > > If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. > > Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. > > Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble > with this. > You lose track of which items are adjacent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 09:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5935282c.4698359@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #111515 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 1:55:50 AM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, > > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > > > > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, > > > > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. > > > > > > > That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from > > > book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester > > > then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. > > > > > > If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. > > > > Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, > > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. > > > > Anybody who has ever driven APL for any length of time has little trouble > > with this. > > > You lose track of which items are adjacent. No, _you_ apparently lose track of such things. You should really learn to believe other people with more experience than you, when they say that they do not. Your three-level-limit is all entirely in your brain - _your_ brain, not ours. Your argument is like that of a man who gets winded walking to the shops, and then claims that it is impossible for people to run a marathon, because you get winded walking to the shops. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 03:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <941b4f97-56e6-4051-893e-9d93d1763326@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111521 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 10:48:29 AM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > You lose track of which items are adjacent. > > No, _you_ apparently lose track of such things. You should really learn > to believe other people with more experience than you, when they say > that they do not. Your three-level-limit is all entirely in your brain - > _your_ brain, not ours. > Your argument is like that of a man who gets winded walking to the > shops, and then claims that it is impossible for people to run a > marathon, because you get winded walking to the shops. > But I'm an expert. Few people have more experience with C than me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 15:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878tl68pgf.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111531 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > But I'm an expert. > Few people have more experience with C than me. Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnd1aib1ka.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #111549 |
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> But I'm an expert. >> Few people have more experience with C than me. > > Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly... +1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-06 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5936e594.7238187@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #111549 |
Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > But I'm an expert. > > Few people have more experience with C than me. > > Oh man, I didn't know coffee could travel through noses that quickly... Dunning and Kruger are having a field day. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 11:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87inkan1iv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111504 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... >> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: >> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, >> > >> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, >> > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. >> > >> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from >> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester >> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. >> >> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. > > Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological) space. I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in R^7. I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7. When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails me. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 04:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ab557755-e671-4160-b6f9-dc0ea869d4f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111532 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:27 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > > > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, > > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... > >> > >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: > >> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, > >> > > >> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, > >> > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. > >> > > >> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from > >> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester > >> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. > >> > >> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. > > > > Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, > > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. > > I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing > dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological) > space. I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the > neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in > R^7. I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to > resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7. > > When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails > me. > My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting and indexing dimensions. (The observation that three is the limit for "grokking" parentheses doesn't rely on that argument). For me, the difference is whether the nesting levels are anonymous. As Richard Heathfield pointed out long ago, anyone can follow the sequence "Universe, Milky Way galaxy, Solar system, Earth, UK, London, Greenwich, Greenwich observatory, reception, small desk, third drawer, second file, third page, fourth line, 16th character. But that's because the nesting levels are tied to the concrete.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | asetofsymbols@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 05:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a63c1a2-49db-49e1-8b2e-f887243d9b12@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111533 |
I believe I wrote some equivalent to loop of deep 256 max yes it is as exponential...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 15:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zidmlega.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #111533 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:59:27 AM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > In article <1df0c26b-87ac-4f3a-b970-ad202d3d2f67@googlegroups.com>, >> > malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com says... >> >> >> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 9:03:12 PM UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote: >> >> > In article <176287ff-7977-420e-ad58-9f92fd29037d@googlegroups.com>, >> >> > >> >> > Visualizing a 4D array isn't any real trick, you know--row, column, page, >> >> > book does it for me. Or row, column, page, file folder. >> >> > >> >> That only works if book 1, page 1, row1, column 1 , is a whole book away from >> >> book2, page 1, row 1, column 1. Just as if I live in 2 High Street, Manchester >> >> then I'm a considerable distance from 2 High Street, Leeds. >> >> >> >> If in fact the data items are adjacent, the visualisation breaks down. >> > >> > Why does the visualization "break down"? You can index across books, >> > shelves, bookcases, etc just fine. >> >> I'm not going to guess what Malcolm means but, for me, N indexing >> dimensions are not the same as N dimensions in a metric (or topological) >> space. I can image the array above quite easily, but I can't image the >> neighbourhood of a point on the 6-dimensional surface of a sphere in >> R^7. I have no trouble imaging the simplest knot in R^3 but I'd have to >> resort to symbols and rules to know anything about knots in R^7. >> >> When you add a metric or a topology to the space my imagination fails >> me. >> > My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting > and indexing dimensions. Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't comment. Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of my comment about metrics and topology? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 07:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dcf8ebf-ba99-4e41-88cb-c1daed2e59cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111540 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:03:08 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > > > My main argument is based on the reverse, an interchangeability of nesting > > and indexing dimensions. > > Since I don't know what you mean by this interchangeability, I can't > comment. Why is this nesting/indexing interchangeability the reverse of > my comment about metrics and topology? > We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on. The question is whether that is just a coincidence, like three being the optimal tradeoff between visual and efficiency considerations for a windmill turbine, or whether it's related in some fashion. If we say "it is related" we must say that nesting and indexing is interchangeable, nesting isn't easier because it doesn't have a topology such that character 1, line 1, page 1 is adjacent to character 1, line1, page 2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 16:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170605162200.5eb87b6ecc52e720d7b8a720@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #111542 |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels > of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that > humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D > but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on. What about time? Are we immortals? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-05 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91d9bde5-aa22-4fd1-9e9f-b61f3220a4d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #111543 |
On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 3:25:20 PM UTC+1, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 07:22:49 -0700 (PDT) > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We've made the empirical observation that humans can cope with three levels > > of nesting, which for the sake of argument we'll agree on. We also know that > > humans are adapted to live in a three dimensional world and can visualise 3D > > but not 4D objects, which for the sake or argument we'll also agree on. > > What about time? Are we immortals? :-) > That's why I said for the sake of argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web