Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi

Jean-François Michaud <cometaj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 1, 2:22 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jean-François Michaud <come...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 30, 2:43 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
? wrote:

...

Maybe it would be a better idea to word your thoughts to more
meaningfully reflect what you think then. I'm not getting the
impression that you are exploring other ideas, I get the impression
(mind you this is purely subjective; and it always is anyways as far
as I'm aware) that you like to clobber them with your own. I would
also have a tendency to think I'm not the only one to think this, but
I might be mistaken; only others could confirm that thought.

When I see what seems to be a flawed line of reasoning, I try to nibble
at it. Often the apparent flaw isn't one and I come to accept the
conclusion. In this case, I have arrived neither at a flaw in the
statement nor of my understanding of it, but at a premise that I'm not
prepared to accept. That's the signal that it's time so stop worrying
the details and agree to respectfully disagree.
Right on, now we're starting to talk about the real stuff, so why do
you not want to explore certain ideas? Were only talking about a
broader definition of Forth, nothing life threatening.

Actually, you were not talking about a broader definition of Forth at
all, but a narrower one. Your statements like "I personally have
trouble calling ANS Forth a Forth but others will disagree" suggests
that your personal definition of Forth excludes Standard Forth. This
is a narrowing. It is also such an absurd conclusion that it calls
into question your premises.

Actually no, it only suggest exactly what I said, that I have trouble
calling it a Forth, not that I exclude it as a Forth.

You have trouble calling it "a Forth", but you don't exclude it from
being "a Forth"? Alright. That's a fine bit of hair-splitting, but
fair enough.

A broader set of premisses doesn't necessarilly equate a narrower
definition although it can be the case. In this case it doesn't
shrink the definition, it broadens it.

To be more precise, ANS Forth would fit part of my definition (and
that of John's also probably), but not the full on definition that
includes the idea of the methodology/philosophy that goes about
shrinking down even the Forth compiler in an effort to reduce useless
complexity and to optimize usability (Charles Moore strikes me as a
person effectively doing what I call Forth using the full meaning of
the term as I define it for myself).

OK. That's an extension of the idea of Forth beyond simply a
language, and doing so has a long history within the community.

What do you have to loose?

Time.

Oh so we have more important things to do than to than to understand
how things work?

Uh, no. That is a massively inappropriate leap beyond what I said.

Not every idea is worth the time to consider.

There is a huge number of stupid ideas that are not worth
exploring, and a relatively small number of good ones. The
sensible individual learns how quickly to sniff out the bad ideas
that are based on false premises and move on to the next idea.

What does sensible individual mean to you in this context? This
seems somewhat vague to me.
If you roughly refer to individuals using their common sense,

More to do with experience, but yes. To be clear: life is too short
to consider every crack-brained idea, because there is an unbounded
supply of them.

Even though I think I am fully aware of the mechanics, I can not
honestly say that it isn't completely obvious to me to determine if a
premise belongs or not in all cases and I certainly can not completely
rely on a cursory inspection, or gut feel, of premises, as you seem to
think is sufficient, to tell me that I am heading in the right
direction or not.

So what do you do, then? You seriously consider every idea you ever
see, no matter how obviously wrong? I don't believe it, and I don't
think you do either! :-)

Andrew.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi
    ... impression that you are exploring other ideas, ... that your personal definition of Forth excludes Standard Forth. ... exploring, and a relatively small number of good ones. ... based on false premises and move on to the next idea. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi
    ... impression that you are exploring other ideas, ... exploring, and a relatively small number of good ones. ... that are based on false premises and move on to the next idea. ... not systematically the case although a general tendency to converge ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi
    ... impression that you are exploring other ideas, ... person effectively doing what I call Forth using the full meaning of ... based on false premises and move on to the next idea. ... thorough inspection takes place which, in most cases, isn't done. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Forth and Co - The Return of the Jedi
    ... impression that you are exploring other ideas, ... whether the premises make sense or not; in the end, ... thought I consider Forth to be mostly similar to what John Doty ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Logic and tautology
    ... about the plausibility of the premises and that has nothing to do with ... You are again being stupid. ... we surely agree that there *is* a meaning ... that is, really a statement, then ambiguity is only a concern insofar ...
    (sci.math)