Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 22:31:11 GMT
Message-ID: <Ps97g.26835$mh.15819_at_tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>
vc wrote:
> J M Davitt wrote:
>
>>vc wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>And I've felt that Leopold got it backwards: the reals are >>>>real, integers are perceptions. >>> >>> >>>So Pi or e are more real to you than two or three of your friends ? >> >>We're talking numbers, not friends. It has to do with the perception >>of "integer-ness." Take a tree. >> >>"How many trees is that?" >> >>"Uh, one." >> >>Cut off a branch. "How many trees is that?" >> >>"Still, one." >> >>Hmm. Removing a branch didn't change it's tree-ness. But if you >>continue removing branches, eventually the answer will be, "That's >>not a tree; none." And the branches removed aren't counted. But >>they're there.
>
>
> Your storytelling has zip to do with the idea of counting. How is
> chopping trees relevant to counting them? You appear to be claiming
> that say measuring a circumference or just a stick length is somehow
> more intuitive[than] and predates counting pebbles. However, if you
> insist that your brain functions this way, so be it.
No, I'm not making such a claim. I'm not sure how measuring differs from counting, but counting seems to first require that things be countable -- and that presumes what seems to be an integer-ness perception of things.
>>My point is that decimating a continuum of values and quantizing >>those values as integers seems to be a perceptual phenomenon.
>
>
> It may "seem" so to you personally, but neither you know (unless you
> have divine inspiration inaccessible to the rest of us) whether the
> 'reality' is continuous or discreet,
That's right. And, because the perception seems so natural, it may be that we're unaware that it's happening.
nor is there any historical or
> lingustic evidence that would corroborate your speculation that reals
> are somehow more real than naturals.
Of this, I'm not so sure. Our language seems to provide different ways of describing quantity for things that are and are not easily countable. "One tree, two trees" -- that's easy. But it doesn't work for grass; then we would have to say blade of grass -- and I've never heard anyone say, "one tree of forest."
AAR: I doubt this is worth an argument.
> [...]
>
>>. And, yes,the >>formalists may get tied up in a chicken and the egg conundrum - >>"Are integers a subset of rationals? How can you have rationals >>without integers?" - and I certainly don't have the answer.
>
>
> The 'formalists' of course may do so if they have no clue what they
> are talking about.
>
> > >>Isn't it {{}}, {{},{{}}}, ...?
>
>>> >>>It is if you mean 1 and 2. >> >>Yup. And isn't that what the quoted post was describing?
>
>
> I do not know, the original post seems terribly confused about the
> whole notion of naturals.
Received on Sun May 07 2006 - 00:31:11 CEST