Re: The wisdom of the object mentors

From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:20:15 +0200
Message-ID: <1rmr9erlyvf09.1klza93sjygct$>

On 27 Jun 2006 11:41:25 -0700, erk wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> Enumeration was just an example of an algorithm for which I, an ignorant,
>> stupid imbecile, if that would please you, can't even imagine what the data
>> could be. Even less I can imagine what is a structure of. Further it is
>> utterly incomputable [infinite, requires axioms of choice and power set
>> etc.]

> Enumeration is not an algorithm. Presumably you're talking about
> (ignore some terminological vagueness here) mapping a function to nodes
> of some structure.

I have just noticed that "enumeration" was a poor word choice. "Ordering" were the right one. (Sets are ordered [a method/algorithm of] by choosing some subset in the power set, comprised of nested sets.) But enumeration would be also OK.

> Enumeration just gets you to each node. The function
> still has to operate on the node, and type issues are critical.
> Furthermore, the results have to be accumulated; another "part" of the
> algorithm.

Yes, but I still don't see any "data".

Aside: from proponents of declarative approaches [I am by no way against declarative descriptions], I would expect a logical conclusion that there is no such thing as "data", as long as you can map a structure to virtually anything.

Dmitry A. Kazakov
Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 21:20:15 CEST

Original text of this message