What is the best way to process this list
in [Lisp]
|
From: Ron Garret on 7 Jan 2010 20:28 In article <0415c891-5dda-4cd4-8a7d-4f1fa7a12e8a(a)h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, Pillsy <pillsbury(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 4:48 pm, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > > > In article <87wrzt3akf....(a)cantab.net>, > > Christophe Rhodes <cs...(a)cantab.net> wrote: > [...] > > > This is not representative of the Lisp culture that I think of myself as > > > a part of. > > > I'm not saying everyone subscribes to this, but many (I would go so far > > as to say an overwhelming majority) do. Lisp pedagogy certainly leans > > heavily in this direction. Is there even one Lisp book out there that > > doesn't introduce ALists and/or PLists early on and saves CLOS as an > > "advanced topic"? > > /Practical Common Lisp/ introduces alists and plists the chapter > before CLOS, and several chapters after hash tables. No, that's not true. PCL introduces PLists in Chapter 3, CLOS in chapter 16, and hash tables in chapter 11. This is not really Peter's fault, by the way. Lisp pedagogy is hobbled by the fact that Common Lisp has built-in support for particular implementations of associative maps, but not for abstract associative maps. This, BTW, is consistent with another point of view that has a significant constituency within the Lisp community, to wit, that CL is a language for experts and the fact that it does not cater to beginners is a feature, not a bug. rg
From: mdj on 7 Jan 2010 21:01 On Jan 8, 1:05 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > | Provide one to refute my statement. > > Simply that the word "opaque" does not appear in the standard. Your > statement is untenable. It is bullshit, which by its nature cannot be > refuted. It can only be called bullshit, and it is evident as bullshit.. It can only be called bullshit by a concrete thinker. Your inability to deal with abstractions and synthesise mental models is not a reflection on the correctness of my words. In fact, almost all of your commentary here can be explained by this observation. It is also why I (who can think abstractly) can see the value of Ron's contribution and learn from it, where you (the concrete thinker) cannot. > But You've this game you've played before: > > Matt: " List-based Defstructs are implemented as PLISTS" > > Ron: "Here's a clue. See this particular `Undefined Consequence on > NON-LIST based defstructs." > > Me: "Bullshit! How can ANY undefined undefined consequence Either A or NOT A on > Non-list-based defstructs show anything related to LIST-BASED > defstructs?" > > Matt: Ron exhibited undefined behaviour A. you said he exhibited > undefined behaviour NOT-A. So you are wrong wrong wrong. Concrete thinkers often make the mistake that by inverting a premise you can invert a conclusion. For instance, you can understand that subtraction is the inverse of addition, but you draw false conclusions because you carry the transitivity of addition over to your assertions about subtraction. Another example would be the following. "If P, then Q. P, therefore Q". Someone with your thinking capacity would make the mistake of thinking "Not P, therefore not Q" Thus you think that because the word "opaque" is missing from the standard, structs are not opaque. This is a first order formal fallacy and the predictable output of a concrete thinking intellectually challenged mind. <more nonsense snipped>
From: Madhu on 7 Jan 2010 21:22 Matt, quit trying to pretend you are engaging in an honest exchange. * mdj <fdf5508b-353e-4ca2-873c-0c150f4bfb56(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:01:40 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 8, 1:05 am, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> | Provide one to refute my statement. |> |> Simply that the word "opaque" does not appear in the standard. Your |> statement is untenable. It is bullshit, which by its nature cannot |> be refuted. It can only be called bullshit, and it is evident as |> bullshit. | | It can only be called bullshit by a concrete thinker. Your inability | to deal with abstractions and synthesise mental models is not a | reflection on the correctness of my words. You are stringing words together to make sentences that have no meaning again. This is the same bullshit you have been engaging in on comp.lang.lisp in every post. However the words you string together do not describe me, or any reality --- the closest they describe are your own psychological flaws. | In fact, almost all of your commentary here can be explained by this | observation. It is also why I (who can think abstractly) can see the | value of Ron's contribution and learn from it, where you (the concrete | thinker) cannot. You (like Ron) suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect, in addition to being a pathological liar ,---- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect> | | The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach | erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their | incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".(1) | The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their | own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast | the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory | inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent | people will rate their own ability higher than more competent | people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken | self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that | others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of | the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the | miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about | others."(1) | `---- |> But You've this game you've played before: |> |> Matt: " List-based Defstructs are implemented as PLISTS" |> |> Ron: "Here's a clue. See this particular `Undefined Consequence on |> NON-LIST based defstructs." |> |> Me: "Bullshit! How can ANY undefined undefined consequence Either A or NOT A on |> Non-list-based defstructs show anything related to LIST-BASED |> defstructs?" |> |> Matt: Ron exhibited undefined behaviour A. you said he exhibited |> undefined behaviour NOT-A. So you are wrong wrong wrong. | Here I think you try to explain how you draw your false conclusion: | Concrete thinkers often make the mistake that by inverting a premise | you can invert a conclusion. For instance, you can understand that | subtraction is the inverse of addition, but you draw false conclusions | because you carry the transitivity of addition over to your assertions | about subtraction. | Another example would be the following. "If P, then Q. P, therefore | Q". Someone with your thinking capacity would make the mistake of | thinking "Not P, therefore not Q" | | Thus you think that because the word "opaque" is missing from the | standard, structs are not opaque. Ah So we are back to playing your favourite bickering game. Now you want to to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word `opaque' which you will define and redefine as you wish for the sake of argument,. But this is a technical newsgroup, and there is no room for this bullshit. | This is a first order formal fallacy and the predictable output of a | concrete thinking intellectually challenged mind. Right. You seem to suffer from an intellectually challeneged mind, and incompetence in your profession would be an additional reason to come on CLL to debate. This explains your pathological need to bicker, and make cover up your logical fallacies by accusing the person you are bickering with Effectively you are abusing CLL (and this exchange with me) as a form of therapy. Maybe your partner Hanne Gudisken could confirm this and tell us about any mental conditions you are being treated for, and how she tolerates a pathological liar with such defects, and confirm your last name. A google search shows she has posted to comp.lang.lisp -- Madhu
From: mdj on 7 Jan 2010 21:55 On Jan 8, 12:22 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > |> Simply that the word "opaque" does not appear in the standard. Your > |> statement is untenable. It is bullshit, which by its nature cannot > |> be refuted. It can only be called bullshit, and it is evident as > |> bullshit. > | > | It can only be called bullshit by a concrete thinker. Your inability > | to deal with abstractions and synthesise mental models is not a > | reflection on the correctness of my words. > > You are stringing words together to make sentences that have no meaning > again. This is the same bullshit you have been engaging in on > comp.lang.lisp in every post. Had I said "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" your statement would be correct. I did not however make any such category error. > However the words you string together do not describe me, or any reality > --- the closest they describe are your own psychological flaws. Are you qualified to make statements about my psychological state? > | In fact, almost all of your commentary here can be explained by this > | observation. It is also why I (who can think abstractly) can see the > | value of Ron's contribution and learn from it, where you (the concrete > | thinker) cannot. > > You (like Ron) suffer from the DunningKruger effect, in addition to > being a pathological liar Where is your evidence of this? > Here I think you try to explain how you draw your false conclusion: > > | Concrete thinkers often make the mistake that by inverting a premise > | you can invert a conclusion. For instance, you can understand that > | subtraction is the inverse of addition, but you draw false conclusions > | because you carry the transitivity of addition over to your assertions > | about subtraction. > > | Another example would be the following. "If P, then Q. P, therefore > | Q". Someone with your thinking capacity would make the mistake of > | thinking "Not P, therefore not Q" > | > | Thus you think that because the word "opaque" is missing from the > | standard, structs are not opaque. > > Ah So we are back to playing your favourite bickering game. Now you want > to to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word `opaque' which > you will define and redefine as you wish for the sake of argument,. No. You drew your conclusion from the absence of that term from the CL standard. I have no need to bicker about the meaning of any words to construct my argument. > But this is a technical newsgroup, and there is no room for this > bullshit. Explain the logic underlying that conclusion please. > | This is a first order formal fallacy and the predictable output of a > | concrete thinking intellectually challenged mind. > > Right. You seem to suffer from an intellectually challeneged mind, and > incompetence in your profession would be an additional reason to come on > CLL to debate. This explains your pathological need to bicker, and make > cover up your logical fallacies by accusing the person you are > bickering with > > Effectively you are abusing CLL (and this exchange with me) as a form of > therapy. It would be simpler to just call me a sadist if that's what you think. > Maybe your partner Hanne Gudisken could confirm this and tell us about > any mental conditions you are being treated for, and how she tolerates a > pathological liar with such defects, and confirm your last name. If you like, I could ask her to read our exchanges and offer a professional opinion. I warn you now though that considering her qualifications, that will not end well for you. > A google search shows she has posted to comp.lang.lisp No. It shows that I posted using her account (accidentally)
From: Madhu on 7 Jan 2010 22:38
Matt quit pretending to engage in an honest interaction. * mdj <958f3c1c-12e4-432b-a2f3-989248b45af1(a)a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 18:55:13 -0800 (PST): | On Jan 8, 12:22 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: | |> |> Simply that the word "opaque" does not appear in the standard. Your |> |> statement is untenable. It is bullshit, which by its nature cannot |> |> be refuted. It can only be called bullshit, and it is evident as |> |> bullshit. |> | |> | It can only be called bullshit by a concrete thinker. Your |> |inability to deal with abstractions and synthesise mental models is |> |not a reflection on the correctness of my words. |> |> You are stringing words together to make sentences that have no |> meaning again. This is the same bullshit you have been engaging in |> on comp.lang.lisp in every post. | | Had I said "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" your statement | would be correct. I did not however make any such category error. No. You are still stringing the words together, so they have a semblance of meaning, which breaks down on investigation, in the context in which they are used. The ones you fool are those who ONLY see your words without seeing that they do not apply to the context, because they cant be arsed to understanding the context which you go to great lengths to hide. |> However the words you string together do not describe me, or any reality |> --- the closest they describe are your own psychological flaws. | | Are you qualified to make statements about my psychological state? Since I am the target of your attacks and continued engagement despite asking you to stop, I have been given more opportunity than I desired to observe your psychological state. Others could confirm or deny my statements if you provide a last name. |> | In fact, almost all of your commentary here can be explained by |> | this observation. It is also why I (who can think abstractly) can |> | see the value of Ron's contribution and learn from it, where you |> | (the concrete thinker) cannot. |> |> You (like Ron) suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect, in addition to |> being a pathological liar | | Where is your evidence of this? Why do you ask? As a victim you would not accept ANY evidence anyway. It was not for argument with you but for the benefit of the newsgroup that I drew attention to the fact that your behaviour on this newsgroup matches the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger. Of course I expected you to snip out the description of your usenet beha |> Here I think you try to explain how you draw your false conclusion: |> |> | Concrete thinkers often make the mistake that by inverting a premise |> | you can invert a conclusion. For instance, you can understand that |> | subtraction is the inverse of addition, but you draw false conclusions |> | because you carry the transitivity of addition over to your assertions |> | about subtraction. |> |> | Another example would be the following. "If P, then Q. P, therefore |> | Q". Someone with your thinking capacity would make the mistake of |> | thinking "Not P, therefore not Q" Thats this game you've played before: *** *** Matt: " List-based Defstructs are implemented as PLISTS" *** *** Ron: "Here's a clue. See this particular `Undefined Consequence on *** NON-LIST based defstructs." *** *** Me: "Bullshit! How can ANY undefined undefined consequence Either A *** or NOT A on Non-list-based defstructs show anything related to *** LIST-BASED defstructs?" *** Matt: Ron exhibited undefined behaviour A. you said he exhibited *** undefined behaviour NOT-A. So you are wrong wrong wrong. |> |> Ah So we are back to playing your favourite bickering game. Now you want |> to to bicker pathologically on the meaning of the word `opaque' which |> you will define and redefine as you wish for the sake of argument,. | | No. You drew your conclusion from the absence of that term from the CL | standard. I have no need to bicker about the meaning of any words to | construct my argument. But I am not interested in your bickering which you try to pass of as `argument'. Your statement about `opaque' is meaningless bullshit. Period. |> But this is a technical newsgroup, and there is no room for this |> bullshit. | | Explain the logic underlying that conclusion please. It is not a `conclusion'. You are playing your Furious green logic card again. Right. You seem to suffer from an intellectually challeneged mind, and incompetence in your profession would be an additional reason to come on CLL to debate. This explains your pathological need to bicker, and make cover up your logical fallacies by accusing the person you are bickering with Effectively you are abusing CLL (and this exchange with me) as a form of therapy. | It would be simpler to just call me a sadist if that's what you think. Why? Calling you a sadist would be a misrepresentation of all that I've said. You are abusing a public usenet forum. It indicates a mental health problem If you did not have a pathological mental health condition, you would have stopped playing this game 50 posts ago. Maybe your partner Hanne Gudisken could confirm this an and tell us about any mental conditions you are being treated for, and how she tolerates a pathological liar with such defects, and confirm your last name. -- Madhu |