Re: Surprise in array concatenation

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: 
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:42:06 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:


Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

On 01 Sep 2005 12:04:17 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: 

Heh?  You want this:

  procedure Put(S: String) is
  begin
      for I in S'First..S'Last loop -- equivalent to S'Range
          Put_Char(S(I));

to crash when S = ""?


Yes. 

What is your approach to subranges then?

  function h(s: String) return Unsigned_32 is
     prefix: String renames
        s(s'first .. s'first + Integer'min(3, s'length - 1));
     result: Unsigned_32 := 0;
  begin
     for k in prefix'range loop
        result := result or Shift_Left(Character'pos(prefix(k)),
                                       (k - prefix'first) * 8);
     end loop;
     return result;
  end h;

(If you could assume for the moment that there is no
Unchecked_Conversion and not a different/better algorithm etc.)


I don't see any problem, so far. Subrange of an empty range is empty. 

But earlier you said that s'first .. ... should crash when
s = "".

As
for the checksum of an empty string it is to be extra defined.

You cannot in general case reverse any possible sequence S1, S2, S3, ... to
deduce S0.


This requirement being generated by arbitrarily applying
the mathematical habit of starting things, deducing thing,
extending things to become some general case (not well defined
for real computers), etc. Basic mathematical facts
are basic relative to some starting point from which you perform
mathematical reasoning.


IF the sequence is a series bound by some operation *:
SN = x1 * x2 * ...* xN

AND * is a group operation

THEN you can take the unit element of the group for S0. 

And what does mathematical group theory offer when the computer
executes fine without it? Why don't you start your basic
mathematical theory from things that work, and explain them
first?

If a sphere of negative radius opens many interesting insights
into unforeseen extensions of geometry, will this have an
influence on a pot maker's occupation?

I'm not asking these questions because I believe that mathematics
is the wrong science for approaching real computers. It's not.

However, every once in a while I'm having to defend
that running computers and performing mathematics are two
sets of operations. They have a fair amount of overlap.
But they are not the same set. Yet many mathematicians
seem to view computer programming as if it were nothing but
a way of transforming their mathematical knowledge into programs,
largely ignoring a few issues:

1 - computers perform I/O, in time - no complete simple theory
   here, right?
2 - computers operate non-deterministically ("malfunction")
   ("Malfunctions are the technicians' job. I'm writing
   mathematically correct programs for flawless computers")
3 - computers are finite.
4 - computers cannot operate on no (0) bits.

Why don't they apply their mathematical capacity to problems
that are probably less fun and more dirty but more crucial?
That it, at least consider adapting mathematics to the world
instead of adapting the world to mathematics.


Now, take something else: let * be max, what would be the maximum of an
empty array?


A problem of math-think. Like this

.... talking to son:

"See this little wood over there? I have counted the trees,
there are 139."

.... a little later:

"Remember I told you about this wood having 139 trees, 14
years ago? Now there are only 23 left."

.... talking to granddaughter visiting:

"See this little wood over there?" -- "No."
-- "It has 0 trees". -- "Ha, ha."

If there is nothing about which to say anything,
then mathematicians decide to say something about
it: truth. Useful, but in a material setting, you have
to consider whether it makes sense. Using your Max example,
I could ask those mathematicians about the maximum of a
subset of the natural numbers (possibly empty!). I'd venture
a guess that the answer will likely be, "It depends.".

For example, you have given "extra defined". ;-)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: model for thought
    ... out that I am not really saying anything at all because mathematics ... Most computers and calculators will inform you of this fact. ... - a particle is currounded by 6 adjacent particles called siblings ... an empty particle can become massive only if a sibling is massive ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ramadan - good deeds or chaos?
    ... analogue computers where parts of real things are used as ... >The molecules or atoms and nucleii, are solving equations every second ... you do not understand numerical mathematics. ... >So you must be an idiot, ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Warning to newbies
    ... believed that the language had to allow changes to evaluation order to ... language for communicating our intentions as to using computers. ... NAN is a floating point number ... to follow the laws of finite mathematics, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Surprise in array concatenation
    ... >>>What is your approach to subranges then? ... Subrange of an empty range is empty. ... > I'm not asking these questions because I believe that mathematics ... > is the wrong science for approaching real computers. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
  • Re: Hofman and Diaby talk about P=NP at INFORMS 2007
    ... if the first approach he has attempted is not understood by the student. ... The beauty of mathematics is that we can always settle ... exhibiting the violated constraint would settle the dispute ... modern age of computers. ...
    (comp.theory)