Next: puzzle
From: spinoza1111 on 7 Feb 2005 16:09

CBFalconer wrote:
> spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> >> spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>
> >> ... snip ...
> >>>
> >>> This style of education is completely inadequate for programming,
> >>> as is shown by the following trick question: what is the length
> >>> of a line bounded by points at x coordinates a and b?
> >>>
> >>> In continuous math the answer is a-b. In many computer
> >>> applications, since and b identify not infinitesimals but
> >>> points-with-mass-and-volume (typically "cells"), the answer is
> >>> not the position of a minus that of b but a-b+1!
> >>
> >> Utter rubbish loquaciously expressed. This explains some of the
> >> errors in your code.
> >
> > No, it displays you don't know your trade. Cf. Knuth, Concrete
> > Mathematics.
> >
> > My example was so simple a child could understand it. If a and b
> > are points with x coordinates 1 and 5, the width of the line
> > segment is of length 4.
> >
> > But if a and b are cells in a row of say seven cells, and a is
> > number one and at the far left and b is 5, the width of the
> > "line" of non-infinitesimal cells is 5 and not four.
>
> x x x x x
> 1 2 3 4 5 location of the discrete
> a b the actual points
> 1 2 3 4 ordinal of the interval
>
> and lo, the count of intervals, which is the width, is 4.
>
> As I said, utter rubbishy nilgewater. Most children can see this.
> Are you sure your name isn't Schildt? The ability to count is a
> prerequisite for this profession.

Herb Schildt published a book on C and was for his pains subject in
this newsgroup to anti-Semitic harassment based on his name's spelling.

Of course, you've willfully missed the point. Your knowledge of
mathematic's foundations is replaced by the effect of rote learning
which instills authoritarianism and the inability to think externally
to concepts.

Like I said, if the points are infinitesimal, then FOR ALL PURPOSES the
distance is 4 (a-b) and not five. The problem is that in programming,
the points are typically infinitesimal but instead have concrete
dimensions which have to be taken into account.

In the case of physical pixels or twips in a physical display, there is
a difference, appreciated by competent programmers, ignored by
authoritarian boneheads, between "the travel distance between a and b"
and "the width of the interval a..b".

In the case of columns in a monospaced display, the most useful formula
for size of interval between the FIRST and LAST column is LAST-FIRST+1,
not LAST-FIRST. Because the columns aren't infinitesimal but have
concrete value, we need to measure the interval as the number of
columns.

Since we can assume for travel purposes that the analog traveler is
positioned on the RIGHT side of the concrete a, then travel distance is
four in order to get to the RIGHT side of the concrete endpoint b.
Furthermore, a competent programmer will know that "3" is the wrong
answer in the sense that the operation "travel from x to y" has to
preserve the side at which the travel terminates.

Thus it would be inadequate to travel minimally from the right side of
a to the left side of b. It'd save time for its distance would be 3 but
the next trip would be lengthened.

The travel distance is however of less use than the (finite) number of
concrete points. In the case of abstract mathematics, this number is
nondenumerably infinite and therefore useless. In the case of actually
simulating a continuous line, this number is finite and highly useful.

Before you post insulting garbage, you would do well to explore the
foundations of mathematics for my experience is that competent
programmers have an appreciation for its foundations.

>
> --
> "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

From: spinoza1111 on 7 Feb 2005 16:11
No, because I do it by hand and in contexts where my book is useful.
That's called participation. Whereas wild and silly accusations and
deliberate campaigns of personal destruction is called Fascism.

From: Randy Howard on 7 Feb 2005 16:46
I am in effect "top-posting" only to warn you of what you are about to read.
Since Mr. Nilgewater seems incapable of using google, I've gone back and tried
to figure out what he was responding to and inserted it manually above his
reply, so as to make it have some context.

The post which he seems to be replying to was by infobahn, and it is inserted
here...

In article <4205AE31.15A6CE4A(a)btinternet.com>, infobahn(a)btinternet.com says...
> CBFalconer wrote:
> >
> > Are you sure your name isn't Schildt?
>
> Schildt writes clearly.
>
> > The ability to count is a prerequisite for this profession.
>
> Which profession? Spamming? Your correspondent is getting just a
> little bit too keen to write "see my book". Try a Google search
> for his use of the exact phrase "my book" in comp.programming.
>
> Wouldn't you call that spamming?

Then, In article <1107810681.184944.199310(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com says...

> No, because I do it by hand and in contexts where my book is useful.

Spamming does not require automation. Repetition of any kind clearly
meets the description.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
From: infobahn on 7 Feb 2005 23:16
spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> No, because I do it by hand

That much, at least, is not in dispute.

> and in contexts where my book is useful.

Ah, you have me there.

> That's called participation. Whereas wild and silly accusations and
> deliberate campaigns of personal destruction is called Fascism.

According to my dictionary, Fascism is "the authoritarian form of
government in Italy from 1922-1943". There does seem to be a word
comp.programming use for wild and silly accusations and deliberate
campaigns of personal destruction, though. It starts with N.

Returning to the subject at hand, the OP may find Wirth's "Algorithms
+ Data Structures = Programs" to be very helpful.
From: Marc Poulin on 8 Feb 2005 00:01
AlgoMan wrote:

> Are there are any books on Data Structures & Algorithms which cover
> this
> subject in the same manner that Bentley does in his papers?

You might try "Algorithms and Data Structures" by Niklaus Wirth.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Next: puzzle