Re: Cases where Forth seems a little clunky

On May 18, 11:19 am, John Passaniti <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jonah Thomas wrote:
I don't think this is worth arguing about.

You are half-correct because there are two issues here.

It makes no sense to argue about using negative numbers as address
constants since any reasonably experienced programmer understands that
just like different number bases, negative numbers are just a different
way to represent a particular bit pattern.

So far, we all agree on that bit.

The half you aren't correct on is the claim that using such a negative
number as an address constant is "additional complexity" of the
conceptual or semantic kind. At best, this is an argument relative to
experience.

And you can't handle that somebody other than me actually agrees. Not
only do you not agree, but you state in the absolute that he isn't
right hahaha. As far as I understand, experience provides familiarity
with exposed concepts, nothing more. By no means does it make a
semantic complexity become less complex, it simply makes one more
familiar with the concept which in turn makes it easier to deal with.
You can become familiar with the idea so much that you don't perceive
it as a complexity at all even though it may be quite complex. In this
case, the ideas at play aren't very complex, but negative numbers ARE
an extra extension that is NOT necessary to perform the work. It's not
even really more convenient. We can accomplish exactly the same work,
but we have to use the semantic extension to the concept of numbers on
top of that.

Out of the two, I pick the simpler concept that allows me to do the
same work as the slighly more complex extension, and that, without
real added benefits. The partition is easy for me to make.

The problem I have is that like a handful of others in comp.lang.forth,
Jean-Francois isn't making a relative argument. Instead he's offering
an absolute statement: That negative numbers as address constants add
some form of complexity. That's not a "for some people" or a "you might
find" statement.

Not everything is relative John. Do you think that reality around you
is relative? If you do then there's no point discussing with you
anymore. I don't believe that reality around us is relative. What you
perceive of that reality on the other hand IS relative.

Mathematics is especially similar to reality in that as ground
premisses are layed down, complete worlds of possibilities can
thereafter be explored as if they were a reality. In such contexts,
both in reality and in mathematics, complexity of the systems is
ABSOLUTE, not relative to the observer. Again, what we interpret from
those realities is RELATIVE.

There is no recognition that his illusion-- that
negative and positive address constants are two different things-- is an
illusion.

And where is that coming from? I did mentione at least twice that I
perceive addresses to be unique sequences of bits. Obviously that
didn't sink in on your side. Or maybe you have trouble understanding
why somebody can think that while still not agreeing with you. Of
course, you won't actually try to pierce the mystery, you'd rather
burn it down as a strawman. It's certainly easier than to try to gain
a different perspective, I'll give you that. Whatever is easier
right!?

For him, it's real, and it's real for *everyone*.

So that's my motivation here, and it falls under a larger, more general
attack I have on all pompous absolutist statements offered by
self-appointed experts.

Hahaha. Okay, here's something very basic to think about; I'll even
draw it for you. I'll make it as easy and as clear as possible so
that, hopefully, but I won't be holding my breath, you can see the
difference and, hopefully, see that one is slightly more complex than
the other, although not much.

0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
.... -5 -4 -3 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ...

Why is it more complex? Because you have to add the idea of a negative
number. If you push the idea further and start thinking about
operations on numbers then you have to start dealing with the limit
between negative numbers and positive numbers and you have to consider
how the operations actually influence the negative numbers +, -, *, /.
Whether you like it or not, it is an extension to the idea of numbers;
and as I said before, it wasn't obviously easy as you seem to think
until the 17th century in Europe. Doesn't that tell you something?
Now, it is of course a widespread concept but, by no means should it
imply that it is less complex (even though it is not very complex)

In the context of addresses, on top of this slight addition in
complexity, you have to remain aware that ... -2 -1 0 1 2 ... are most
probably not contiguous in memory and that operations performed on
such numbers might actually be a bit more trickly than what you would
expect directly expect when dealing ONLY with positively represented
addresses.

I'm not certain I can think of a way to make this any clearer. I think
that you can probably plainly see it, but I'm also almost certain that
you would rather try and fight it instead of loosing face publicly on
the forum.

Jean-Francois Michaud

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does rewind() ignore errors?
    ... self-delusion, not reality. ... decent security software that is being used properly) are the ordinary ... and in most contexts that includes at least one behavior that I REALLY ... in contexts where plausible forms of "undefined behavior" includes at ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: why get a scope?
    ... That is a fundamental question for our age, and it's being asked in many different contexts. ... It boils down to a definition of what is reality and what constitutes a meaningful experience. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: English Prime ( E-Prime [To Exist or Not to Exist])
    ... >> that what you think is not reality. ... > works for me in some contexts, and if I hadn't investigated E-prime, ... aware of enough things to grasp what Korzybski exposed entirely. ... I didn't sleep for days (head was spinning). ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... defined differently for use in different contexts. ... You evidently have some notion of "reality" that you think is inappropriate for Physics to consider, and so you insist the word be banned entirely from discussion. ... are specific meanings that are applicable to this context. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... defined differently for use in different contexts. ... You evidently have some notion of "reality" that you think is inappropriate for Physics to consider, and so you insist the word be banned entirely from discussion. ... specific meanings that are applicable to this context. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)