On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Bill Page wrote:
|
| On 12/6/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| >
| > | If you wish can treat the sequence of symbols:
| > |
| > | ( x ( x x ( x ( x ) ) x ) )
| > |
| > | as encoding a kind of "curve" is some abstract differential geometry.
| > | Then each '(' and ')' token has some associated unit "curvature" or
| > | something like that. But I do not see any advantage to this point of
| > | view.
| >
| > Are the '(' and ')' needed?
|
| ??? Yes of course!
Sorry, why `of course!' There is nothing obvious there.
|
| > And in case they are needed, why should they be thought of as
| > curvature, as opposed to mere boundary markers?
| >
|
| Perhaps they can be thought of as boundary markers.
Which they are from the Spad parser/definition point of view.
| I was talking
| about a geometric visual analogy for the structuring of program code,
| but you apparently want to take a more abstract topological view.
I'm just suspicious of analogy.
| Since topology logically precedes the the usual notion of geometry
| perhaps in this case the notion of dimension is not of much
| importance. It is not clear what advantage this might have. Could you
| explain?
The advantage of pretending that the Spad language is 2-dimensional
when that has not been established by logical inference? Intellectual
honesty.
-- Gaby
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
