Python for philosophers

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 11, 2013, 4:03:15 PM5/11/13

to pytho...@python.org

Hi,
this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Mark Janssen

unread,

May 11, 2013, 4:10:45 PM5/11/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[...] the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single

> and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside
> programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from
> "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the
> idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one
> that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not
> exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most
> economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1
> Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror
> reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible
> (that's to say without the apostrophes).

Wow. You must be from another planet. Find Socrates if you wish to
know these things. He's from there also.

A-dam.

Fábio Santos

unread,

May 11, 2013, 4:21:47 PM5/11/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but I'll reply anyway. Python does not necessarily shorten data. The Python machine is the house for your representations of data, your own "mirrors".

When you program you are asking python to acknowledge your representations and to do work on them as you specify. Both of these tasks are expressed in code. The first is the simplest, where you create your classes. It is optional since you may use no classes at all and instead use files, text and numbers, or classes given by someone else. The second is where you give the orders and lay a script (as in a movie script, or a game script) out. You can create and command many representations of data in order to make your program fulfill its purpose. You can also make choices according to the current state of your data.

alex23

unread,

May 11, 2013, 6:16:04 PM5/11/13

to

On 12 May, 06:10, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow. You must be from another planet. Find Socrates if you wish to
> know these things. He's from there also.

Now now, there's no need for a turf war, there's plenty of room on
this list for crazies.

Gregory Ewing

unread,

May 11, 2013, 9:26:02 PM5/11/13

to

Citizen Kant wrote:
> I roughly came to the idea that Python could be

> considered as an *economic mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors*

> the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the
> programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way
> possible.

At best, this would be true only for a very small
subset of things that you can enter into the
interactive interpreter.

Even confining yourself to arithmetic expressions,
there are problems. Consider:

>>> 12**34
4922235242952026704037113243122008064L

The input is 6 characters long, and the output
is 37 characters long. Is that more "economical"?

--
Greg

Ned Batchelder

unread,

May 11, 2013, 10:46:38 PM5/11/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On 5/11/2013 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:

Hi,
this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Python is straightforward: you write instructions, and it executes them. At its core, that's all it does. Why does the core have to be any different than that?

--Ned.

Joel Goldstick

unread,

May 11, 2013, 11:14:19 PM5/11/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,
this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not.

My guess is that you don't want to be a programmer. Otherwise you would know that you did.

At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--

Joel Goldstick

http://joelgoldstick.com

rusi

unread,

May 12, 2013, 12:22:11 AM5/12/13

to

I'm reminded of this:

Conversation between inmate and attendant in an asylum

Inmate: I am Napoleon
Attendant: Yes of course. But how did you know that?
Inmate: God himself told me s…
[Loud voice from another corner] I told you no such thing!

rusi

unread,

May 12, 2013, 12:45:12 AM5/12/13

to

I have on occasion expressed that newcomers to this list should be
treated with more gentleness than others.
And since my own joking may be taken amiss, let me hasten to add (to
the OP -- Citizen Kant)

What you are looking for is more in line with what is called
'rewriting systems'
And the shortening you talk of is usually called 'canonical form' or
'normal form'

Python is closer to such than traditional imperative/OO languages like
C/C++/Java, though other languages -- usually called 'functional
language' are generally closer to this ideal.

The most mainstream of these today is probably 'Haskell'
For your purposes however you may want to look at functional languages
that are more explicitly based on rewriting such as 'Pure' (earlier
'Q')

For last http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_%28programming_language%29

For rest: Ive tried to put into quotes things that could he helpful
starting points for search engine research

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 12, 2013, 12:47:45 AM5/12/13

to pytho...@python.org

Who's been telling you of private conversations between Steven and me?

ChrisA

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 1:17:57 AM5/12/13

to

On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:45:12 -0700, rusi wrote:

> I have on occasion expressed that newcomers to this list should be
> treated with more gentleness than others. And since my own joking may be
> taken amiss, let me hasten to add (to the OP -- Citizen Kant)

A noble aim, but I have a feeling that "Citizen Kant" is version 2.0 of
88888 Dihedral.

Of course, I could be wrong.

--
Steven

Devin Jeanpierre

unread,

May 12, 2013, 4:15:30 AM5/12/13

to Steven D'Aprano, pytho...@python.org

Without benefit of the doubt, kindness is impossible. I would suggest
giving newcomers at least that much.

-- Devin

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:17:02 AM5/12/13

to pytho...@python.org

Thank you very much for your answers.

I'm afraid that, at this stage, I must prevent myself from "knowing too much" about the subject. My idea here is trying to fill the gaps, mostly, using intuition. What I do here is to try to "understand". That's different from just knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence of understanding's increasing. As the scope of my understanding increases, the more I look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice versa, because, knowing isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.

Greg: your point is that
-------------------------------------
>>> 12**34
492223524295202670403711324312

2008064L

The input is 6 characters long, and the output
is 37 characters long. Is that more "economical"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

and that's a good one. But take in account that with "shortening" I refer to "according to Python's axiomatic parameters". What's "shorten" if expressed in Python? For example: I'm plainly aware that the word "python" looks shorten than "01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110". But it's shorten just for me and you and maybe for every single human, not for the computer. You type "python", and the language (so to speak) thinks "in my opinion you're not being economical enough coz with this you mean 01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110", and then mirrors the supposedly result in its particular context. My "shorten" points to what's shorten during and inside Python's runtime.

Maybe It'd be good if I explain myself a bit more. What I'm trying here is to grasp Python from the game's abstraction point of view, as if it were, for example, chess. That's why I need a real_player to point me to: (so to speak, I wish I could express the ideas according to the python's syntax but that's out of my scope by now)

games.python.board(like the chessboard but in abstract) # with board I'm not necessarily referring to the black on Python's command line or any other substitutes for that, but to its axiomatic context. Which are those unchangeable things that limit so firmly the dynamics of the game, and that in this context must be considered like hardware, the most material part of Python. Coz (in my neophyte opinion) these are the things that (in a more or less obvious way) limit "the dynamic of any attempt to introduce a change in this game".

games.python.pieces(a finite number of named elements) # one example of what in Python (unless for me) seems to look like pieces are python.keywords(python2). Might be more entities that can be considered like pieces...

games.python.start(the position that each piece must assume over the given board in order to conform "the sign of this kind of game's starting point") # following the example of the only pieces I've recognized so far, I would drive myself to think about the state of python.keywords
Of course with "state" I could be referring to any kind of state. The only clue is that, as far I can see, is expected that those hypothetical states come in pairs, like state(available, unavailable)

games.python.end(game's final point or highest achievement) #I never forget that checkmate is just a sign that can be observed looking at the board or "axiomatic structure that in the game remains static". That end_sign usually is, no more nor less than a transformation of the start_sign, transformation that, sometimes, shorten it.

games.python.pieces.behavior(the legal or non erroneous modifications that can be made to the start_sign in order to convert it to end_sign)

games.python.player.rear.avoid(what it must be avoided by any legal -non erroneous- means) # seems to be that the kind of things to be avoided are not precisely making errors, since Python will tell. Making errors is just something that's so illegal that simply doesn't take place. With "avoid" I mean what happens when you get checked by running code that doesn't lead to any error messages but at the same time doesn't give the expected result.

My goal right now is to produce one or more abstracts that explain (mainly for myself but extensive to others) about how I deal with some problems related to our "search for emphaty" nature at the time of what we tend to consider "interaction" (learning to write in Python in interactive mode, or just programming, is one of that cases). In essence, due to Python's lack of empathy, one must adopt its shape and ways to (so to speak) "interact" with it. Python could be considered like a solitary game, and in my opinion could be taken as it is from the beginning, in order to properly understand what one exactly is doing. That seems to be the best way to properly "understand" Python; then knowledge will come, naturally as a perfect search of, exactly, the things that "understanding" needs.

Any clue about this would be highly appreciated.

2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com>

Hi,
this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------

¿Has leído «Las Novelas Prohibidas»?

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:30:56 AM5/12/13

to

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:17:02 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> Any clue about this would be highly appreciated.

If you are interested in the intersection of programming and philosophy,
I strongly recommend that you read "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal
Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

--
Steven

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:32:07 AM5/12/13

to

On Sun, 12 May 2013 04:15:30 -0400, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:

> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:45:12 -0700, rusi wrote:
>>
>>> I have on occasion expressed that newcomers to this list should be
>>> treated with more gentleness than others. And since my own joking may
>>> be taken amiss, let me hasten to add (to the OP -- Citizen Kant)
>>
>> A noble aim, but I have a feeling that "Citizen Kant" is version 2.0 of
>> 88888 Dihedral.
>>
>> Of course, I could be wrong.
>
> Without benefit of the doubt, kindness is impossible.

That is a logical non sequitor. One can choose to be kind to someone even
if you have no doubt that they do not deserve it.

Besides, kindness is hard to define. Is it kinder to give somebody what
they want, or what they need?

> I would suggest giving newcomers at least that much.

I'm happy to say that, based on Citizen Kant's second post, I'm now
reasonably confident that (s)he is not a bot. No mere artificial
intelligence could have written that second post.

--
Steven

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:51:28 AM5/12/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe It'd be good if I explain myself a bit more. What I'm trying here is
> to grasp Python from the game's abstraction point of view, as if it were,
> for example, chess.

Maybe you're going for something a little too complicated. Let's boil
the question down to a much MUCH simpler subset: expression
evaluation. And let's take Python itself right out of the picture, and
work with only the following elements:

* Parentheses ( )
* Multiplication and division * /
* Addition and subtraction + -
* Decimal integer constants 0123456789

This will give the basics of algebraic evaluation. It's quite fun to
build a simple little expression evaluator that just does these few
operations, and it's surprisingly useful (embed it within a command
interpreter, for instance). Some time ago I wrote one into a Windows
app (written in C++), and when I pulled it out just now and made it a
stand-alone tool, the whole thing was only ~60 lines of code. Nice and
easy to work with.

So, let's take an expression and see what it really means.

2*(3+4)+6

One way to interpret this is with a stack. Here's how Python evaluates
that expression:

>>> def foo():
return 2*(three+4)+6

>>> dis.dis(foo)
2 0 LOAD_CONST 1 (2)
3 LOAD_GLOBAL 0 (three)
6 LOAD_CONST 2 (4)
9 BINARY_ADD
10 BINARY_MULTIPLY
11 LOAD_CONST 3 (6)
14 BINARY_ADD
15 RETURN_VALUE

(I had to replace one of the constants with a global, to foil the optimizer)

The LOAD statements add to an internal stack, the BINARY operations
pop two operands and push the result. This is more-or-less the same
technique as I used in my evaluator, except that instead of compiling
it to code, I just march straight through, left to right, and so I had
to maintain two stacks (one of operands, one of operators).

Is this what you had in mind when you wanted to grasp Python's
internals? Because it's pretty easy to explore, thanks to the dis
module. There's a huge amount that can be learned about the
interpreter, its optimizers, and so on, just by disassembling
functions. Alternatively, if you're thinking on a more abstract level,
leave Python aside altogether and pick up a book on language design.
Also can be awesome fun, but completely different.

ChrisA

rusi

unread,

May 12, 2013, 12:00:18 PM5/12/13

to

On May 12, 7:17 pm, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe It'd be good if I explain myself a bit more. What I'm trying here is
> to grasp Python from the game's abstraction point of view, as if it were,
> for example, chess. That's why I need a real_player to point me to: (so to
> speak, I wish I could express the ideas according to the python's syntax
> but that's out of my scope by now)

On seeing the interest in games, I can only reiterate the suggestion
to look at rewrite systems
Here is on of the classics on rewrite systems

http://rewriting.loria.fr/documents/survey-draft.ps.gz

whose starting example is a game.

Message has been deleted

llanitedave

unread,

May 12, 2013, 2:13:30 PM5/12/13

to

No, that won't help. You're trying to give him knowledge; he wants understanding.

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 12, 2013, 5:48:28 PM5/12/13

to pytho...@python.org

I can't give him understanding. Best I can do is offer facts, which
lead to knowledge, which lead to understanding if absorbed
appropriately. Also, sources of knowledge (like dis.dis) can be VERY
powerful tools in gaining understanding.

ChrisA

Gregory Ewing

unread,

May 12, 2013, 8:34:13 PM5/12/13

to

Citizen Kant wrote:
> What I do here is to try to "understand".
> That's different from just knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence
> of understanding's increasing. As the scope of my understanding
> increases, the more I look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice
> versa, because, knowing isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.

It doesn't always work that way. With some facts plus a
theory, you can deduce more facts. But it's always possible
for there to be more facts that you can't deduce from what
you already know.

> But take in account that with "shortening" I
> refer to "according to Python's axiomatic parameters".

I think what you're trying to say is that it takes an
expression and reduces it to a canonical form, such as
a single number or single string.

That's true as far as it goes, but it barely scratches
the surface of what the Python interpreter is capable
of doing.

In the most general terms, the Python interpeter (or
any other computer system, for that matter) can be thought
of as something with an internal state, and a transition
function that takes the state together with some input
and produces another state together with some output:

F(S1, I) --> (S2, O)

(Computer scientists call this a "finite state machine",
because there is a limited number of possible internal
states -- the computer only has so much RAM, disk space,
etc.)

This seems to be what you're trying to get at with your
game-of-chess analogy.

What distinguishes one computer system from another is
the transition function. The transition function of the
Python interpreter is rather complicated, and it's
unlikely that you would be able to figure out all its
details just by poking in inputs and observing the
outputs. If you really want to understand it, you're
going to have to learn some facts, I'm sorry to say. :-)

--
Greg

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:41:35 PM5/12/13

to

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:34:13 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:

> In the most general terms, the Python interpeter (or any other computer
> system, for that matter) can be thought of as something with an internal
> state, and a transition function that takes the state together with some
> input and produces another state together with some output:
>
> F(S1, I) --> (S2, O)
>
> (Computer scientists call this a "finite state machine", because there
> is a limited number of possible internal states -- the computer only has
> so much RAM, disk space, etc.)

That's not what finite state machine means. A finite state machine
doesn't refer to the number of physical states of the underlying hardware
implementing the device, it refers to the number of external states of
the computation being performed. For example, a traffic light may be
modelled by a Finite State Machine with three states: Red, Amber, Green.
It may actually be implemented by a general purpose computer with
trillions of internal states, or by a specialised electrical circuit, or
by clockwork. The implementation doesn't matter. What matters is the
three external states, any input to the device, plus the transition rules
between them.

Python is not well-modelled as a Finite State Machine. Python is
equivalent in computing power to a Turing Machine, while Finite State
Machines are much weaker, so there are things that Python can do that a
FSM cannot.

--
Steven

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 10:46:59 PM5/12/13

to

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:03:15 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> Hi,
> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original
> purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At
> this moment I'm just inspecting the environment.

Towards what purpose?

Do you want to learn to program? If not, then why do you care about
Python programming? What do you aim to get out of this exercise?

> I'm making my way to
> Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of
> view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an
> "entity".

What do you think "Python's core" means? What do you mean by "global
definition"? What is an "entity"?

> In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication
> about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but
> in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself
> about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the
> entity it is?

Programming.

A programming language is an abstract system for performing computations.
Or, if you prefer simple English, programming. Programming is what
programming languages are for. That is *all* they are for.

> I mean, beside programming,

Your question pre-supposes a counter-factual. Namely that there exists
something *more fundamental* to programming that Python is for. One might
as well ask:

"Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a
screwdriver?"

Just because you can pound a small nail into soft wood using the handle
of a screwdriver, does not mean that pounding nails is more fundamental
to the screwdriver than driving screws.

> what's the single and most
> basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly
> (interactive mode)?

For your purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that you
single it out in this way? Interactive mode is just like non-interactive
mode, only the user interacts directly with the compiler, instead of
indirectly.

--
Steven

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 12, 2013, 11:25:30 PM5/12/13

to

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:17:02 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> Thank you very much for your answers.
>
> I'm afraid that, at this stage, I must prevent myself from "knowing too
> much" about the subject. My idea here is trying to fill the gaps,
> mostly, using intuition.

Then you are doomed to failure.

Intuition is greatly over-rated. Most of the time, it's just an excuse
for prejudice, and a way to avoid understanding.

> What I do here is to try to "understand".
> That's different from just knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence
> of understanding's increasing. As the scope of my understanding
> increases, the more I look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice
> versa, because, knowing isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.

Define your terms. What do you think "to know" means? What do you think
"to understand" means?

[...]

> But take in account that with "shortening" I
> refer to "according to Python's axiomatic parameters".

You cannot hypothesis about Python's behaviour in terms of its "axiomatic
parameters" unless they know what those axiomatic parameters are. So what
do you think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did you come to
that conclusion given that you know virtually nothing about Python?

> What's "shorten"
> if expressed in Python? For example: I'm plainly aware that the word
> "python" looks shorten than "01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000
> 01101111 01101110". But it's shorten just for me and you and maybe for
> every single human, not for the computer. You type "python", and the
> language (so to speak) thinks "in my opinion you're not being economical
> enough coz with this you mean 01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000
> 01101111 01101110",

Sheer nonsense, and I don't mean the part where you anthropomorphise
Python. (The "intentional stance" is often an excellent way of reasoning
about complex systems.)

Your premise that Python tries to be "economical" is incorrect. If
anything, Python is the opposite: it is often profligate with resources
(memory mostly) in order to save the human programmer time and effort.
For example, Python dicts and lists may easily be four times as large as
they could be (sometimes even bigger), *by design*. A list with 10 items
may easily have space for 40 items. This is hardly economical, but it is
a good trade-off in order to get better, and more predictable,
performance.

[...]

> Maybe It'd be good if I explain myself a bit more. What I'm trying here
> is to grasp Python from the game's abstraction point of view, as if it
> were, for example, chess.

A lousy analogy. Python is nothing like chess. You might as well try to
understand Python as if it were a toothbrush.

--
Steven

alex23

unread,

May 13, 2013, 12:19:47 AM5/13/13

to

On May 13, 12:30 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve

+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> If you are interested in the intersection of programming and philosophy,
> I strongly recommend that you read "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal
> Golden Braid" by Douglas R. Hofstadter.

+1

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 13, 2013, 3:13:23 AM5/13/13

to

Some further details on something mentioned about Python being
"economical".

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:17:02 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> For example: I'm plainly aware that the word "python" looks shorten than
> "01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110". But it's
> shorten just for me and you and maybe for every single human, not for
> the computer. You type "python", and the language (so to speak) thinks
> "in my opinion you're not being economical enough coz with this you mean
> 01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110", and then mirrors
> the supposedly result in its particular context. My "shorten" points to
> what's shorten during and inside Python's runtime.

In fact, the string "python" is implemented differently in different
versions of Python. Picking Python 2.7, it may be implemented something
like this binary string:

???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ????????
???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???????? 00000000
01110000 00000000 01111001 00000000 01110100 00000000 01101000
00000000 01101111 00000000 01101110 00000000 00000000

where the spaces are purely for the convenience of the reader, and the
question marks are internal values that I don't know enough to give the
correct value. (Although I can predict that at least two sets of eight
question marks is probably "00000000 00000110", the length of the string.)

To be precise, this is with a "narrow build", a "wide build" is even more
profligate with memory.

I'm not trying to beat the original Poster up for making an error, but
demonstrating just how badly off track you can get by trying to reason
from first principles (as Plato may have done) instead of empirical study
(as Aristotle or Bacon may have done). Knowledge of how things actually
are beats understanding of how they ought to be every time.

--
Steven

alex23

unread,

May 13, 2013, 5:05:05 AM5/13/13

to

On May 13, 5:13 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve

+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I'm not trying to beat the original Poster up for making an error, but
> demonstrating just how badly off track you can get by trying to reason
> from first principles (as Plato may have done) instead of empirical study
> (as Aristotle or Bacon may have done). Knowledge of how things actually
> are beats understanding of how they ought to be every time.

Nicely put, I may have to copy & paste this into another thread
here...

I always did have a soft spot for William James.

Neil Cerutti

unread,

May 13, 2013, 9:52:56 AM5/13/13

to

On 2013-05-13, Steven D'Aprano

<steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:
> I'm not trying to beat the original Poster up for making an
> error, but demonstrating just how badly off track you can get
> by trying to reason from first principles (as Plato may have
> done) instead of empirical study (as Aristotle or Bacon may
> have done). Knowledge of how things actually are beats
> understanding of how they ought to be every time.

Wasn't it Aristarchus who was considered a trouble-maker for
dropping different sized lead balls from a tower? They would land
simultaneously just as his teacher, who taught that heavier
objects fall faster, was walking past.

--
Neil Cerutti

Grant Edwards

unread,

May 13, 2013, 10:33:21 AM5/13/13

to

On 2013-05-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info> wrote:

> Your premise that Python tries to be "economical" is incorrect. If
> anything, Python is the opposite: it is often profligate with resources
> (memory mostly) in order to save the human programmer time and effort.

IOW, Python is designed to be economical, but the resource of concern
is not computer memory, it's the programmer's time/effort. Computer
memory gets cheaper every year. My time gets more valuable every year
(hopefully).

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! The entire CHINESE
at WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all
gmail.com share ONE personality --
and have since BIRTH!!

rusi

unread,

May 13, 2013, 10:53:10 AM5/13/13

to

On May 13, 7:41 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve

+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Python is not well-modelled as a Finite State Machine. Python is
> equivalent in computing power to a Turing Machine, while Finite State
> Machines are much weaker, so there are things that Python can do that a
> FSM cannot.

Consider the following.

Python is turing-equivalent; so is C and scheme.
I now write a recursive factorial function in all 3.
[To level the pitch all three are written tail-recursively]

------------Python------------------
def fact(n,acc=1):
return acc if not n else fact(n-1,n*acc)
------------C-------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("fact %d is %d\n", atoi(argv[1]), fact(atoi(argv[1],1)));
}

int fact(int n, int acc)
{
return !n? acc : fact(n-1,acc*n);
}
---------------------------------
When I run these, the C happily keeps giving answers until a million

The python crashes around a thousand.

However examined closely we find that though the C is giving answers
its giving junk after around 12
fact 17 is -288522240
And 35 onwards its 0 (!!)

So finally we do it in scheme:
(define (fact n ac)
(if (zero? n) ac (fact (1- n) (* ac n))))
--------------------------------------------------------

This program neither crashes (because of tail recursion) nor gives
wrong answers

However around 90000 my entire machine becomes completely unusable
with top showing guile (scheme) taking all the memory and kswapd next
in line.

So whats the moral?

The Turing model is essentially infinite.
[A TM to compute factorial would never crash because it can never be
built]

The machines we use are finite.
As a first approx we may say that languages like C,Python,Scheme are
Turing-complete.

However in fact when we have to stuff these (conceptually beautiful)
infinite objects into messy finite objects such as Intel hardware,
some corners have to be cut.

And these 3 -- C, Python, Scheme -- CUT THE CORNERS DIFFERENTLY

So when these corners dont matter -- Turing-equivalence is fine
When they do, we must make do living in a more messy finite world

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 13, 2013, 12:24:44 PM5/13/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> int fact(int n, int acc)
> {
> return !n? acc : fact(n-1,acc*n);
> }
> ---------------------------------
> When I run these, the C happily keeps giving answers until a million
>

> However examined closely we find that though the C is giving answers
> its giving junk after around 12
> fact 17 is -288522240
> And 35 onwards its 0 (!!)

That'll depend on your integer size. If it's a 32-bit integer, you
can't store numbers greater than 2**31-1 (if you declared it as
'unsigned int', you could go all the way to 2**32-1). I'm sure you
could write this to use the GNU Multi-Precision library, but it'd be a
lot more complicated. However, as far as I know, the Turing machine
never promises that; its cells aren't meant to be infinite integers.

The Python script is, of course, governed by sys.setrecursionlimit().
But by adding a simple driver, we can test the real limit:

import sys

def fact(n,acc=1):
return acc if not n else fact(n-1,n*acc)

n=2
while True:
sys.setrecursionlimit(n+2)
print("fact",n,"has",len(str(fact(n))),"digits")
n*=2

On my 64-bit system, running a recent trunk build of CPython 3.4, it
can calculate 8192! but not 16384! (segfault). The limit seems to be
12772; after that, boom. Your crash-point will quite probably vary,
and I'd say there'll be compile-time options that would change that.

Of course, after playing with this in Python, I had to try out Pike.
Using the exact same code you proposed for C, but with a different
main() to save me the hassle of keying in numbers manually, I get
this:

fact 8192 has 28504 digits - 0.026 secs
fact 16384 has 61937 digits - 0.097 secs
fact 32768 has 133734 digits - 0.389 secs
fact 65536 has 287194 digits - 1.628 secs
fact 131072 has 613842 digits - 7.114 secs
fact 262144 has 1306594 digits - 31.291 secs
fact 524288 has 2771010 digits - 133.146 secs

It's still going. One core consumed, happily working on 1048576!, and
not actually using all that much memory. Hmm.... looks like the Pike
optimizer has turned this non-recursive. Okay, let's tweak it so it's
not tail-recursion-optimizable:

return n?n*fact(n-1,1):1;

Now it bombs at 65536, saying:

Svalue stack overflow. (99624 of 100000 entries on stack, needed 256
more entries)

Hey, it's better than a segfault, which is what C would have done :)
And it's a tweakable value, though I don't know what the consequences
are of increasing it (presumably increased RAM usage for all Pike
programs).

Your final conclusion is of course correct; nothing we build can be
truly infinite. But we can certainly give some very good
approximations, if we're prepared to pay for them. The reality is,
though, that we usually do not want to pay for approximations to
infinity; why is IEEE 754 floating point so much more used than, say,
arbitrary-precision rational? Most of the time, we'd rather have good
performance and adequate accuracy than abysmal performance and perfect
accuracy. But hey, if you want to render a Mandelbrot set and zoom in
to infinity, the option IS there.

ChrisA

rusi

unread,

May 13, 2013, 2:14:16 PM5/13/13

to

On May 13, 9:24 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your final conclusion is of course correct; nothing we build can be
> truly infinite. But we can certainly give some very good
> approximations, if we're prepared to pay for them. The reality is,
> though, that we usually do not want to pay for approximations to
> infinity; why is IEEE 754 floating point so much more used than, say,
> arbitrary-precision rational? Most of the time, we'd rather have good
> performance and adequate accuracy than abysmal performance and perfect
> accuracy. But hey, if you want to render a Mandelbrot set and zoom in
> to infinity, the option IS there.

Lets look at the costs of locomotion (which I am rounding to neat
figures for an easy discussion)

It costs $10K for a car which goes at around 80 kmph

Now if I want to move at 800 kmph I need to switch from car to plane
and that will cost me in millions

And if I want to move at 8000 kmph I need to be in a rocket in outer
space. Cost perhaps in billions

And maybe if I spend in trillions (leaving aside the question where I
got the trillions) maybe my rocket can go at 80,000 kmph

So what will it cost me to have a rocket that will go at 300,000 m/sec
(186,000 miles per second may be more familiar)?

So what am I driving at?

Some limitations are technological. Some are fundamental.

Earlier I talked of the fact that C, python and scheme hit the
finiteness wall in different ways/places.
machine word size is C's casualty
stack size is python's
memory is scheme's

The details are technological; the fact of finiteness is fundamental
just like the speed-of-light bar is fundamental.

The example of numbers is another such case.

The set of real numbers is in general not computable
Even if we restrict ourselves to the so-called computable real
numbers...
[interestingly Turing's original paper was on computable (real)
numbers]
we get into a soup because:
One can (somewhat simplistically) think of a real number as a
(potentially) infinite list of digits.
Now comparing two finite lists for equality is a trivial operation

However comparing two infinite lists gets us into trouble because both
lists may go on and on... and be same and same... for ever and ever...
In short equality for infinite lists (and therefore real numbers) is
undecidable.
[Well technically semidecidable because if they are different we get a
'not-equal' answer]

Sorry if this all sounds abstruse...
The other day I was reading someone saying that java -- which is after
all such an 'enterprisey' language -- had goofed by not providing a
half-decent money-type.

If you think about it, this is saying the opposite of your:

> But we can certainly give some very good approximations, if we're prepared to pay for them.

He cannot use int and have a billionaire (or more correctly a
2147483648-aire) add a dollar and get to zero
Nor is it a great idea to use floating point and have some clever
programmer skim off the sub-penny round-off errors into his personal
account.

tl;dr
Computers are hopelessly finite
Much harder to deal with this finitude than to hand-wave the problem
away

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 13, 2013, 7:32:43 PM5/13/13

to pytho...@python.org

I'm amazed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of knowledge I'm not able to discuss some of them. I've been inspecting the stuff about rewriting and that drew my attention to my first intuition of Python being economic. Maybe could it support my impression about a thing thats behind the language and got to do with condensing expressions until their end point is reached. I'll absolutely read the book you recommended, coz looks perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks perfect too. Then again something that was discussed here about Python being economic or not and how or in which sense also threw some light on my first impression about the language. Everything here is interesting and illustrative. Anyway, I think that maybe I'm missing the point and I'm not being capable of expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I'm here. I thought that the most convenient thing to do is trying to keep myself attached to the natural language I master (so to speak) and answer the a set of questions that has been formulated. Maybe with this I'm helping myself.

Towards what purpose I'm just inspecting Python's environment?
Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess' environment. Eventually, I could end up playing; but that isn't told yet.

Do I want to learn to program?

I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the opposite. I've said that I wasn't sure. And I said that because it's true. I'm not sure. Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looking to know. I'm looking to understand this something called Python. I've came here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a number of topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I sometimes have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a fancy way and "realize" a great deal of things, is that I use a lot the verb "realize". These constant instantiations of mine are like well done objects of real true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a method called "understanding" from the class that corresponds and apply to any number of memorized_data_objects that were previously instantiated in my mind coming from my senses. For me this seems to look like what follows:

>>> understanding(combination(a_set_of _memorized_data_objects))

>>> def real_knowledge
>>> understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects) # How does this look?

I'm positive about that being told all the time about everything is pretty much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment saves money, but at the cost of not playing with real knowledge that's verified by each self (checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn't developed our actual brains just by being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomena, that now we humans are talking about.

If not, then why do I care about Python programming?

In part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about one or another thing that one could be looking for, I've taken a look to Ruby and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that really matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake. Could be the case that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of me. If that's the case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method are the first ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Python also must be an entity that's able to swallow, doesn't matter that it's chicken object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that's interesting and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding method. Then I realize that what's stated above implies that I can feed Python, and (here starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws back by its tail. Then I'll approach to smell any possible profit.

What do I aim to get out of this exercise?
Since actually I'm not running for programmer, my reason for understanding Python must be sui generis and it is.

What do I think "Python's core" means?
More than thinking I'm just trying to guess what Python's core must be. Any phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is almost all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered with skin? Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and nothing but its truth (that's to say thinking it without all its optionals) I tend to look at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe a core in itself.

One color note is that in the serpent class there's no attachment method. Serpents are unemotional, they use to drop their eggs here and there without a care. Serpent class lacks of empathy method.

What do I mean by "global definition"?
I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself.

What's an "entity"?
It could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the attention to it, even if I'm still not in the position of label the phenomena in a correct manner nor conceptualize it at all.

Why do my affirmation pre-suppose that exists something *more fundamental* to programming that Python is for?

With this I don't mean more important but fundamental, that comes from foundation, that's to say something meta or previous.

Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a screwdriver?

Aside the use that materialistic marketing tends to include in its eternal propaganda, there's another use of whatever tool that I, the monkey, am able to manipulate. My hand and my thought are engaged in the closest relationship one can ever imagine. Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains, foo that doesn't set the just listening to what someone would tell_about. The case is I'm not able to get my material hands over Python, but that doesn't mean that I must merely observe it as if it were non material. I'm trying at least to emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling something that could be called object_manipulation in order to understand sounds crazy and maybe it is, it's paradoxical too, at the same time sounds logic.

For my purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that I single it out in this way?
Using the command line I'm setting myself closer to what I'm trying to understand. That doesn't seem to be what one would consider doing wrong.

Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn't just like non-interactive mode?
It seems that there are tiny differences between typing on the command line and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that being economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the tiny differences.

Why do I insist on the fact that "I must prevent myself from knowing too much about a subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gaps, mostly, using intuition?

This is an important question that I've tried to answer close to the start.

Why do I believe that intuition isn't greatly over-rated, and that most of the time, isn't just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoid understanding?

This is another good question that I've already tried to answer.

What do I think "to know" means? What do I think "to understand" means?
I've already tried to answer this.

What do I think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did I come to that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python?
I'm coping with this, as I've already stated, as if Python and Chess inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called board, that's to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and serves as its basic constant. With "axiomatic parameters" I've tried to illustrate this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or boundary, and even if all of those labels denote a limit, all of them, unless for me, sound like... static. To think about Python in terms of something that's static seems incorrect. "Axiomatic parameters" looked like an initial limit that one can set, it just sounded accurate for a Python's kind of thing.

Why do I maintain that Python could be something like chess.

From the "trying to understand" point of view, everything can be considered a game. In my opinion even science could be considered a game that could be played in solitary mode.

Am I getting closer to the point?

2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com>

Hi,

this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.

Thanks a lot for your time.

Dave Angel

unread,

May 13, 2013, 9:47:48 PM5/13/13

to pytho...@python.org

On 05/13/2013 07:32 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
>
> <SNIP>

> Am I getting closer to the point?
>

Depends on whom you think you're talking to. Clearly, you've replied to
yourself, and top-posted besides. That's not a conversation, it's a
monologue.

--
DaveA

llanitedave

unread,

May 13, 2013, 11:33:06 PM5/13/13

to

On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:32:43 PM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:

>An entity named Python must be
> somehow as a serpent.

Moe like a dead parrot, actually.

Steven D'Aprano

unread,

May 14, 2013, 1:29:45 AM5/14/13

to

On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
> finger against the skin of the snake.

Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.

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

--
Steven

Jake Angulo

unread,

May 14, 2013, 2:31:00 AM5/14/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Do I want to learn to program?

> I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the

> opposite. I've said that I wasn't sure.

Hmmmm... i'd say you'll make very good business applications analyst. In fact i'd hazard to say you can make it to CIO.

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 14, 2013, 4:34:58 AM5/14/13

to pytho...@python.org

2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info>

I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 14, 2013, 5:11:34 AM5/14/13

to pytho...@python.org

>>From: llanitedave <llani...@veawb.coop>

>>On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:32:43 PM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:

>>>An entity named Python must be
>>> somehow as a serpent.

llanitedave wrote:

>>>> Moe like a dead parrot, actually.

That's a good one! Even If doesn't lead to the fact that Python (so to speak) use to give an answer.

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 14, 2013, 6:36:14 AM5/14/13

to pytho...@python.org

Case study (kind of)

Imagine that I use to explore with my mind a particular topic and I want to map and model the mechanics of that exploration. That's mostly metaphysical. I have a partner called Python with whom I must communicate in Python. Which would be the basics that I must "know" in order to pass my ideas to him properly. With this I mean using the units of my natural language skills that match with his language, and using them in Python's language context, in order to "program" at the highest level possible. It's true that my program won't run yet but for me this is not an obstacle at all, as when one writes a book one can start writing an index. For some people, this index or highest level programming could look mostly like a void thing coz lacks of the proper meat that a Python use to eat, and in a sense they are right. But that's not the point. The point is that as soon as I can I would start to dig deeper in that structure and build the proper meat that my highest level labels are just naming. What if using my ability to name what I actually think and recognize the path of whichever method I call from my object of thinking, I'd like to start setting a context for further immersion (inmersion with advanced mathematical notation an that? Somebody commented about a couple of basic elements which I'm familiarized with, like +, -, /, =, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, (), etc. I know that Python has a set of keywords, there's also a proper way in which one must express wholes in Python, proper way which I'm not familiarized with but I'm able to learn. Does this help?

For me, starting with Python is an affair of connecting with it. It's not about including it in me or including me in it, but a kind of symbiotic relationship. Unless for me, using my natural language as far as I can, but constrained (formalized) by Python syntax in order to model using objects and methods and classes that are still unable to run in Python (yet) seems to be a good starting point for a symbiotic relationship. Understanding might depend in our ability to set ourselves in the shoes of another.

Any clues? Since this is a real goal that I'm looking to accomplish, any question that would clarify a bit more my states will be highly appreciated.

Terry Jan Reedy

unread,

May 14, 2013, 10:55:46 AM5/14/13

to pytho...@python.org

> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info

> <mailto:steve+comp....@pearwood.info>>

> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the
> British
> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.

That does not mean they were unaware that Pythons are snakes.
"requiring a "slippery-sounding" surname, they settled on "Python""

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>

Mark Janssen

unread,

May 14, 2013, 2:56:10 PM5/14/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm making my way to Python (and
> OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to
> set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to
> do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning
> of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them,
> the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single
> and most basic use of Python as the entity it is?

It is a way to form order from ideas, an *experimental* philosophy.
One can apply and implement a philosophy, taking it out of the realm
of ideas and simulate them in the machine.

> I mean, beside
> programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from
> "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)?

A game of interactions.

> I roughly came to the
> idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one
> that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface,

That is called the "editor window" in our world that is displayed on
an electronic device called a computer display, but in Samael's world
it is a mirror into our world. He misused it to rape the crown of the
Hebrew story (found in the Bible).

> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that
> mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the
> most shortened expression of that data?

No, that is me, Marcos.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

DJC

unread,

May 14, 2013, 4:27:34 PM5/14/13

to

On 14/05/13 09:34, Citizen Kant wrote:
> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info>
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>>>> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>>>> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>>>> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>>>> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>>> Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>>> comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>

>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>

>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.
>>
>

Emanual Kant was a real piss ant
Who was very rarely stable

Ramchandra Apte

unread,

May 14, 2013, 11:51:44 PM5/14/13

to

On Sunday, 12 May 2013 01:33:15 UTC+5:30, Citizen Kant wrote:
> Hi,
> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an economic mirror for data, one that mainly mirrors the data the programmer types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the apostrophes).

> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the most shortened expression of that data?

> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.
> Thanks a lot for your time.

I expected some spam but this actually makes some sense.

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 13, 2013, 2:22:51 PM5/13/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:14 AM, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It costs $10K for a car which goes at around 80 kmph
>
> Now if I want to move at 800 kmph I need to switch from car to plane
> and that will cost me in millions
>
> And if I want to move at 8000 kmph I need to be in a rocket in outer
> space. Cost perhaps in billions
>
> And maybe if I spend in trillions (leaving aside the question where I
> got the trillions) maybe my rocket can go at 80,000 kmph
>
> So what will it cost me to have a rocket that will go at 300,000 m/sec
> (186,000 miles per second may be more familiar)?

A $1 pocket flashlight.

:)

ChrisA

Grant Edwards

unread,

May 15, 2013, 10:37:57 AM5/15/13

to

On 2013-05-14, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info>
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>> >> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>> >> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>> >> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>> >> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>

>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>

>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.

Firstly, watch your quoting, Steve D'Aprano didn't write that despite
your claim that he did.

Secondly, if a the person who named something tells you they named it
after A rather than B, what are you going to do other than "taken
because I've been told". Are you claiming Guido lied about the source
of the name?

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! My life is a patio
at of fun!
gmail.com

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 15, 2013, 3:55:17 PM5/15/13

to pytho...@python.org

On 2013-05-14, Citizen Kant <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp....@pearwood.info>
>

>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>> >> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>> >> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>> >> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>> >> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>

>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.

Grant Edwards said:

>>>> Firstly, watch your quoting, Steve D'Aprano didn't write that despite
>>>> your claim that he did.

>>>> Secondly, if a the person who named something tells you they named it
>>>> after A rather than B, what are you going to do other than "taken
>>>> because I've been told". Are you claiming Guido lied about the source
>>>> of the name?

Of course not. I'm just claiming that the tree (what's been told) is preventing him from seeing the forest (what it is). If what's been told was (put, by the very God of Uranus) that "the name's origin resides on a string, that string's made up with the entire text of The Bible's Genesis chapter with the word Python inserted not exactly in the middle but upper on that tree", now I would be claiming the very same thing. As a matter of class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python, which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive. Of course one always may want to perform random hacking and turn tables just because and treat the word python as a variable's name, setting that python equals Monty Python in order to checkmate any given conversation. In that case we'll have to cope then with the long lasting problem of being forced to name every python snake as a Monty Python snake, due to the caprice of a programmer .

alex23

unread,

May 15, 2013, 7:55:47 PM5/15/13

to

On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a matter of
> class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python,
> which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being
> considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in
> which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive.

"Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!" Or
to put it another way: context is important.

I find it both funny and sad that you think the name of the language
is preventing _others_ from seeing it as it is, when you're the only
one who seems to be fixated upon it.

Fábio Santos

unread,

May 15, 2013, 8:12:57 PM5/15/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On 15 May 2013 20:59, "Citizen Kant" <citiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course one always may want to perform random hacking and turn tables just because and treat the word python as a variable's name, setting that python equals Monty Python in order to checkmate any given conversation. In that case we'll have to cope then with the long lasting problem of being forced to name every python snake as a Monty Python snake, due to the caprice of a programmer .
>

In Python all variables are actually labels. Labels refer to an object. An object can be referred to by any amount of labels, but when no labels and other references remain "pointed at" it, garbage collection destroys the object. So if we set python equals Monty Python the actual python snake will actually cease to exist.

Ned Batchelder

unread,

May 15, 2013, 9:01:27 PM5/15/13

to Citizen Kant, pytho...@python.org

On 5/11/2013 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things
> that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to
> the lowest level of it's existence.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Python is a tool, it does what you
tell it. To make an analogy, or maybe to clarify your philosophical
view of the world, consider a hammer. What is the "lowest level of its
existence"?

--Ned.

Tim Daneliuk

unread,

May 15, 2013, 9:17:07 PM5/15/13

to

All You People are making this way too hard. To understand how
questions like the OPs ought be resolved, please read:

http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Terry Jan Reedy

unread,

May 15, 2013, 11:43:11 PM5/15/13

to pytho...@python.org

On 5/15/2013 9:17 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

Wikedly funny.

alex23

unread,

May 16, 2013, 12:49:19 AM5/16/13

to

On May 16, 11:17 am, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

Best recipe for tuna casserole ever! Cheers for this :)

Tim Daneliuk

unread,

May 16, 2013, 12:55:37 AM5/16/13

to

"I have have realized that the traditional omelet form (eggs and cheese) is bourgeois."

Tim Daneliuk

unread,

May 16, 2013, 12:57:24 AM5/16/13

to

"Today I made a Black Forest cake out of five pounds of cherries and a live beaver,"

rusi

unread,

May 16, 2013, 1:08:31 AM5/16/13

to

On May 16, 6:17 am, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 08:01 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
> > On 5/11/2013 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
> >> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.
>
> > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Python is a tool, it does what you tell it. To make an analogy, or maybe to clarify your philosophical view of the world, consider a hammer. What is the "lowest level of its existence"?
>
> > --Ned.
>
> All You People are making this way too hard. To understand how
> questions like the OPs ought be resolved, please read:
>
> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

Ha Ha! Very funny!
Also a serious reminder of what philosophy tends to become.
[Robert Pirsig wrote about the diff between philosophy and
philosophology]

Andrew Berg

unread,

May 16, 2013, 2:24:23 AM5/16/13

to comp.lang.python

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> All You People are making this way too hard. To understand how
> questions like the OPs ought be resolved, please read:
>
> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

On this list, I would expect a Sartre reference to be something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crIJvcWkVcs

--
CPython 3.3.1 | Windows NT 6.2.9200 / FreeBSD 9.1

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 16, 2013, 8:28:11 AM5/16/13

to pytho...@python.org

On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a matter of
> class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python,
> which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being
> considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in
> which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive.

alex23 wrote:
>> "Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!" Or

>> to put it another way: context is important.

>> I find it both funny and sad that you think the name of the language
>> is preventing _others_ from seeing it as it is, when you're the only
>> one who seems to be fixated upon it.

Maybe would be good if I share with you guys some basics of scientific humor. As alex23 well pointed out, there's a kind of funny and sad behind this typical human reaction. There's a lot of science observing you as a plain humans, science has been being observing you for a long time, and science says that people tend to laugh_at when their intuition realizes that is in front of whatever phenomena that could undermine its thought foundations. Believe it or not, laughing_at is mostly a sign that one's afraid of losing his reason, a manifest sign of psychological fear. For example, being informed about that in a few hours an asteroid named X-21 will crash your planet destroying it would also first make you "react" neglecting it, then react with the typical smile_at the messenger, then if this given messenger insists you would normally tend to "overreact" and laugh_at the previously mentioned messenger, and all this will happen even if the information brought to you says the truth. Same happens if one's mom come one day and tells that the guy one always believed is his father is in fact not, that there's a real father of yours that will remain forever lost in the crowd with whom she once had an occasional sex intercourse inside the bathroom of a bar. Then first you'll smile_at her, then if she keeps on insisting with the funny/sad subject that alex23 well pointed out you'll eventually start overreacting and laugh_at her. At this point, only if she keeps on insisting with her truth until you're tired enough of overreacting because overreacting won't ever change the fact that the guy you (need to) believe is your biological father could keep on being whatever you please but not that, she can reach the goal of making you understand.

I'm just an honest and polite guy asking you guys a couple of simple out of the box questions that are important for me. Everyone here has the freedom to keep on with their own assumptions and beliefs. If someone's interested on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would be great and highly appreciated. Thinking outside the box isn't just a cheap thing since it's highly creative. Take note that being able to think and write in English doesn't make you writers as, put, Faulkner. Same happens with any other language, same happens with Python.

rusi

unread,

May 16, 2013, 9:46:09 AM5/16/13

to

On May 16, 5:28 pm, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm just an honest and polite guy asking you guys a couple of simple out of
> the box questions that are important for me. Everyone here has the freedom
> to keep on with their own assumptions and beliefs. If someone's interested
> on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would
> be great and highly appreciated. Thinking outside the box isn't just a
> cheap thing since it's highly creative. Take note that being able to think
> and write in English doesn't make you writers as, put, Faulkner. Same
> happens with any other language, same happens with Python.

Let me quote your first post (OP):

> I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic
> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer types

> on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it,
> but expressed in the most economic way possible.

And let me suggest that you follow your own advise -- Can you say what
you have to say in 1/10th the number of words? Ok if not 1/10th then
1/5th? 1-third?

If you can, you are on the way to appreciating something which you
almost came to and then lost in interminable prolixity, to wit:
> The starting question I make to myself about Python is:

> which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is?

IOW a programmer is one who quickly and easily comes to the nub/core/
kernel/essence of a problem and as easily and adroitly shaves off the
irrelevant.

Else: (you cant /wont reduce your prolixity)
You are bullshitting us and we are being trolled by you

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 16, 2013, 10:00:12 AM5/16/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IOW a programmer is one who quickly and easily comes to the nub/core/
> kernel/essence of a problem and as easily and adroitly shaves off the
> irrelevant.

+1.

This is a fairly good description of a programmer's job. Of course,
that's the theoretical and pure programmer... a professional
programmer often has to:

* Figure out what the problem *is* based on an incomplet description
from an incompetent user via a bored telephone operator

* Traverse a morass of bureaucratic requirements and politicking just
to get the necessary hardware/software to do his work

* Deal with the Layer Eight firewalling against the implementation of
the solution he comes up with

* Attend inane meetings with bikeshedding non-technical people who
have some kind of authority over the project

* Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But yeah, that's what a programmer is. :)

ChrisA

Schneider

unread,

May 16, 2013, 10:13:49 AM5/16/13

to pytho...@python.org

Maybe the implementation of the Python Interpreter could be seen as
transition function.
This can be understand in detail, but it even if you know how the
interpreter works, you don't really know to work
_with_ the interpreter.
Even more, there are a lot of decisions, which are made 'by design' and
don't have a clear answer. to see why somethings are
done in the way they are done you have to understand the philosophy of
programming with python.

bg,
Johannes

On 13.05.2013 02:34, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Citizen Kant wrote:
>> What I do here is to try to "understand". That's different from just
>> knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence of understanding's
>> increasing. As the scope of my understanding increases, the more I
>> look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice versa, because, knowing
>> isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.
>
> It doesn't always work that way. With some facts plus a
> theory, you can deduce more facts. But it's always possible
> for there to be more facts that you can't deduce from what
> you already know.
>
>> But take in account that with "shortening" I refer to "according to
>> Python's axiomatic parameters".
>
> I think what you're trying to say is that it takes an
> expression and reduces it to a canonical form, such as
> a single number or single string.
>
> That's true as far as it goes, but it barely scratches
> the surface of what the Python interpreter is capable
> of doing.
>
> In the most general terms, the Python interpeter (or
> any other computer system, for that matter) can be thought
> of as something with an internal state, and a transition
> function that takes the state together with some input
> and produces another state together with some output:
>
> F(S1, I) --> (S2, O)
>
> (Computer scientists call this a "finite state machine",
> because there is a limited number of possible internal
> states -- the computer only has so much RAM, disk space,
> etc.)
>
> This seems to be what you're trying to get at with your
> game-of-chess analogy.
>
> What distinguishes one computer system from another is
> the transition function. The transition function of the
> Python interpreter is rather complicated, and it's
> unlikely that you would be able to figure out all its
> details just by poking in inputs and observing the
> outputs. If you really want to understand it, you're
> going to have to learn some facts, I'm sorry to say. :-)
>

--
GLOBE Development GmbH
K�nigsberger Strasse 260
48157 M�nsterGLOBE Development GmbH
K�nigsberger Strasse 260
48157 M�nster
0251/5205 390

Grant Edwards

unread,

May 16, 2013, 10:27:07 AM5/16/13

to

On 2013-05-16, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 08:01 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>> On 5/11/2013 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.
>>
>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Python is a tool, it does what you tell it. To make an analogy, or maybe to clarify your philosophical view of the world, consider a hammer. What is the "lowest level of its existence"?
>>
>> --Ned.
>
> All You People are making this way too hard. To understand how
> questions like the OPs ought be resolved, please read:
>
> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

Yea, I've decided we're being trolled...

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'd like MY data-base
at JULIENNED and stir-fried!
gmail.com

Tim Daneliuk

unread,

May 16, 2013, 1:50:44 PM5/16/13

to

On 05/16/2013 09:27 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>> On 05/15/2013 08:01 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2013 4:03 PM, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>>> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the lowest level of it's existence.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Python is a tool, it does what you tell it. To make an analogy, or maybe to clarify your philosophical view of the world, consider a hammer. What is the "lowest level of its existence"?
>>>
>>> --Ned.
>>
>> All You People are making this way too hard. To understand how
>> questions like the OPs ought be resolved, please read:
>>
>> http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html
>
> Yea, I've decided we're being trolled...
>

" I want to create an omelet that expresses the meaninglessness of existence,
and instead they taste like cheese. "

llanitedave

unread,

May 17, 2013, 1:42:01 AM5/17/13

to

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:28:11 AM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:
> On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
If someone's interested on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would be great and highly appreciated.

Sorry, but you're asking for more than just thinking outside the box. What you want would seem to require thinking from within the bottle.

88888 Dihedral

unread,

May 18, 2013, 7:56:41 PM5/18/13

to

Chris Angelico於 2013年5月14日星期二UTC+8上午12時24分44秒寫道：
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM, rusi <rusto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > int fact(int n, int acc)
>
> > {
>
> > return !n? acc : fact(n-1,acc*n);
>
> > }
>
> > ---------------------------------
>
> > When I run these, the C happily keeps giving answers until a million
>
> >
>
> > However examined closely we find that though the C is giving answers
>
> > its giving junk after around 12
>
> > fact 17 is -288522240
>
> > And 35 onwards its 0 (!!)
>
>
>
> That'll depend on your integer size. If it's a 32-bit integer, you
>
> can't store numbers greater than 2**31-1 (if you declared it as
>
> 'unsigned int', you could go all the way to 2**32-1). I'm sure you
>
> could write this to use the GNU Multi-Precision library, but it'd be a
>
> lot more complicated. However, as far as I know, the Turing machine
>
> never promises that; its cells aren't meant to be infinite integers.
>
>
>
> The Python script is, of course, governed by sys.setrecursionlimit().
>
> But by adding a simple driver, we can test the real limit:
>
>
>
> import sys
>
>
>
> def fact(n,acc=1):
>
> return acc if not n else fact(n-1,n*acc)
>
>
>
> n=2
>
> while True:
>
> sys.setrecursionlimit(n+2)
>
> print("fact",n,"has",len(str(fact(n))),"digits")
>
> n*=2
>
>
>
> On my 64-bit system, running a recent trunk build of CPython 3.4, it
>
> can calculate 8192! but not 16384! (segfault). The limit seems to be
>
> 12772; after that, boom. Your crash-point will quite probably vary,
>
> and I'd say there'll be compile-time options that would change that.
>
>
>
> Of course, after playing with this in Python, I had to try out Pike.
>
> Using the exact same code you proposed for C, but with a different
>
> main() to save me the hassle of keying in numbers manually, I get
>
> this:
>
>
>
> fact 8192 has 28504 digits - 0.026 secs
>
> fact 16384 has 61937 digits - 0.097 secs
>
> fact 32768 has 133734 digits - 0.389 secs
>
> fact 65536 has 287194 digits - 1.628 secs
>
> fact 131072 has 613842 digits - 7.114 secs
>
> fact 262144 has 1306594 digits - 31.291 secs
>
> fact 524288 has 2771010 digits - 133.146 secs
>
>
>
> It's still going. One core consumed, happily working on 1048576!, and
>
> not actually using all that much memory. Hmm.... looks like the Pike
>
> optimizer has turned this non-recursive. Okay, let's tweak it so it's
>
> not tail-recursion-optimizable:
>
>
>
> return n?n*fact(n-1,1):1;
>
>
>
> Now it bombs at 65536, saying:
>
>
>
> Svalue stack overflow. (99624 of 100000 entries on stack, needed 256
>
> more entries)
>
>
>
> Hey, it's better than a segfault, which is what C would have done :)
>
> And it's a tweakable value, though I don't know what the consequences
>
> are of increasing it (presumably increased RAM usage for all Pike
>
> programs).
>
>
>
> Your final conclusion is of course correct; nothing we build can be
>
> truly infinite. But we can certainly give some very good
>
> approximations, if we're prepared to pay for them. The reality is,
>
> though, that we usually do not want to pay for approximations to
>
> infinity; why is IEEE 754 floating point so much more used than, say,
>
> arbitrary-precision rational? Most of the time, we'd rather have good
>
> performance and adequate accuracy than abysmal performance and perfect
>
> accuracy. But hey, if you want to render a Mandelbrot set and zoom in
>
> to infinity, the option IS there.
>
>
>
> ChrisA

Hey, ChisA, are you delibrately to write a recursive version
to demonstrate the stack depth problem in Python?

def fact(n):
ret=1
if n>1: # integer checking is not used but can be added
for x in xrange(n): ret*=x
#print ret # debugging only for long integers
return ret

In a 32 or 64 bit system, this non-recursive verssion
will be limited by the heap space not by the stack limit.

Chris Angelico

unread,

May 18, 2013, 8:04:45 PM5/18/13

to pytho...@python.org

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM, 88888 Dihedral
<dihedr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hey, ChisA, are you delibrately to write a recursive version
> to demonstrate the stack depth problem in Python?
>
> def fact(n):
> ret=1
> if n>1: # integer checking is not used but can be added
> for x in xrange(n): ret*=x
> #print ret # debugging only for long integers
> return ret
>
>
>
> In a 32 or 64 bit system, this non-recursive verssion
> will be limited by the heap space not by the stack limit.

And just when we're sure Dihedral's a bot, a post like this comes through.

Dihedral, are you intelligent? I'm still in two minds about this...
which may be why you so often appear to have no minds. I dunno.
Mathematics somewhere I fancy.

ChrisA

88888 Dihedral

unread,

May 18, 2013, 10:30:43 PM5/18/13

to

Chris Angelico於 2013年5月19日星期日UTC+8上午8時04分45秒寫道：

I am too lazy to write a factorial computations with primes
here.

Michael Torrie

unread,

May 19, 2013, 12:46:22 AM5/19/13

to pytho...@python.org

On 05/18/2013 08:30 PM, 88888 Dihedral wrote:
> I am too lazy to write a factorial computations with primes
> here.

Ahh, that's better.

Citizen Kant

unread,

May 16, 2013, 4:06:34 PM5/16/13

to pytho...@python.org

rusi said:

> And let me suggest that you follow your own advise -- Can you say what
> you have to say in 1/10th the number of words? Ok if not 1/10th then
> 1/5th? 1-third?

Thanks for the suggestion. I apologize for being that expansive; maybe you are right about this. In my world less use to be less. I'll try to review my doubts in order to express them in a much more concise format.

Of course this is not trolling at all, and I'm intrigued by how fast someone can fall into that kind of conclusions...

I'm pretty much interested in the topic, so I'll review the stuff.

rusi

unread,

May 19, 2013, 1:46:07 PM5/19/13

to

You are doing well -- Glad to see that.
Except for the subject line. What's with the Fwd-loop?
Anyway I have attempted to correct it