Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?

On 13 Mar, 05:22, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 12, 10:38 am, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 12 Mar, 16:30, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:09 am, "Mark Nicholls" <Nicholls.M...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 8 Mar, 04:30, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I replied to this one as well and it didn't appear....hmmm....oh well.

Mark Nicholls wrote:
On 7 Mar, 16:05, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Then you are including more than is required to construct the counting
argument.....the counting argument doesn't care whether they are car
registrations, data structures, programs, addresses....it is
irrelevant.

Again, if we are allowed to play parsing pre-process fiddle games,
then anything can be anything such that the argument says nothing of
value.

that is not the case....the counting argument is a formal method.

I don't want to get into a syntax battle because there are
many ways to slice the syntax cat and skin the duck. A strict
interpretation of OO says that "every method must be part of an object/
class". Thus, self-standing functions like "print()" cannot exist, at
least not without zarking up the language.

Is there an injective mapping from the integers into the reals?

Arguments about integers being a subtype of numbers usually do not
extrapolate to domain entities such as employees or invoices.

again your filling in gaps I have not specified, on the basis that you
want to have a pop at OO....the counting argument is a formal part of
set theory....it can be applied to several domains.....but it has
absolutely nothing to do with OO.

As a mathematical construct "Is there an injective mapping from the
integers into the reals"?

Can you turn that into something about employees, invoices, products,
etc?

?

Is there a injective mapping from the domain of heights of employees
to the nearest inch into the domain of precise heights of employees
(i.e. expressed as reals).

The relevance of the question is to your rejection of the application
to OO.....if you reject the OO application, then it only seems fair
that you reject the set theory application.

Do you have a link to this "counting theory" described more carefully?
You are growing too kryptic for my tastes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality

Call me dense, but I don't see how this applies to procedural
allegedly being a subset of OO or "naked methods" such "print". In
procedural, functions don't have to belong to any object/class
whatsoever. However, OO generally requires this, so it is not a
superset. If it was a super-set, then it would allow free-floating
functions. Now a given language may allow for such, but language X
allowing Y is not nec. the same as paradigm A allowing Y. Such a
language would simply be a multi-paradigm language.

You may be being dense....or I may be being dense...or we may be
talking about different things.

"functions don't have to belong to any object/class.....However, OO
generally requires this, so it is not a superset."

Z80 Assembly program

'ret'

Z80 Machine code program

'C9'

are these programs 'equivalent'?

I don't know machine code so I cannot be sure. However, saying two
programming statements/snippets produce the same results has nothing
to do with paradigm difference or paradigm subset-ness. It is simply a
statement of Turing Equivalency.

But it is saying that the a specific program under a specific mapping
and specific conditions, creates a program that behaves identically
(Turing or whatever model you wish...that is a semantic issue and
irrelevant...a program is a black box that has a result on applying a
funcion 'execute')....'paradigm' is not what I said, I'm talking about
programming constructs.....so on one hand a string of
characters....and on the other an execution 'result'....who can say
how the programs were created...they may be created by random, or by a
room of monkeys with type writers or by OO'ites....it is not the
issue.

If programmer A produces a program in assembler and programmer B
produces a program in machine that is in the image of the obvious
mapping from assembler to machine code....and both programs
unsuprisingly produce exactly the same result, then are the constructs
equivalent? to me they are.

It would be the same to ask, are mathematical sentences written in
roman numerals equivalent to mathematical sentences written in arabic
numeral under evaluation. i.e. can you construct a sentence in one
that under the obvious mapping is not true in the other?

The proof is relatively trivial....you simply take the inverse mapping
and that all atomic terms true in arabic have to be true in
roman....and then inductively thus all sentences true/false in arabic
have to be true/false in roman.....do that both ways and your
done....if 2+2=4....then 'ii' + 'ii' = 'iv'....I don't need to sit
there with an abacus and work it out, I simply map the numerals and
hey presto I know the result.

Thus 'arabic mathematics' is isomorphic i.e. indisinguishable except
for the strings of characters that you label the number with, to
'roman mathematics'.

The construct for machine code and assembler would be roughly the
same....they are isomorphic....indistinguishable except for labels.

The construct for OO constructs against procedural ones, again would
be basically the same.....indistinguishable except for labels.

Maybe your objection is a more fundamental philosophical one about
such mathematics constructs rather than a specific objection to OO, if
so, we will simply have to agree to disagree.....I 'believe' in these
constructions....but it is only a belief......but then how would you
work out.....xviii + xv + xxxxix = ?....time for the abacus? or would
you simply map them to arabic numerals?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How do I dig a memory value out?
    ... language hit the 'sweet spot' between a higher level ... > that would compile to machine code. ... > A friend of mine who was working with lasers, (and also had an Atari) ... Someone brought it into a user group meeting. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: String and Language
    ... only ever give the semblance of language and truth. ... interpretation or mapping truth and falsity. ... Interpretation might be a candidate, ... But again, like chemistry, logic IS NOT philosophy. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: MSIL or Bytecode taught instead of ASM
    ... efforts of the "high level language" communities, ... spent learning any given assembler or assembly language. ... said IL (unlike the basic architecture). ... traditional VM (the high or low-levelness between bytecode and machine code ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Is "taihun" related to kentum forms of "ten"?
    ... innovations for the numerals and the form that ended up getting chosen ... individual words in a language can come from different ... blind sound laws operating on an arbitrary designation for 10 (dekm) ... the "semantically meaningful" explanation for the word, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Is "taihun" related to kentum forms of "ten"?
    ... innovations for the numerals and the form that ended up getting chosen ... individual words in a language can come from different ... blind sound laws operating on an arbitrary designation for 10 (dekm) ... the "semantically meaningful" explanation for the word, ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading