Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Best Language

From: joel:neely:fedex at: 11-Dec-2002 13:54

Hi, Reichart, Interesting questions! Reichart wrote:
> What representational system, besides English, is good at expressing > the following three (characteristic) statements, and how would these > statements be represented in that system? > > 1) L is a list of Foobles. >
One of the following L :: [Fooble] or L = {f | f (- Foobles} (where the "(-" is really a lowercase epsilon!)
> 2) L is a list of Glorps of Foobles. > (Assume G(f) maps Foobles to Glorps) >
This one is a little harder, because there are two different issues, in my mental model: L :: [Glorp] or L = {g | g (- Glorps} express the idea that L is a list of Glorps (without worrying about where they came from). If I *need* to worry about the Foobles used to "manufacture" the specific Glorps in question, I'd probably write L = {G(f) | f (- Foobles}
> 3) L is a list of Foobles such that each Fooble is H() of > the one before it. (Where H(f) is a function mapping > Foobles to Foobles.) >
As the construction becomes more complex, I tend to fall back on more and more formal notation. If I want to focus on the pairwise element relationships, I might write (A i,j : 0 < i < N : L.i = H.L.(i-1)) or, if I think for a few seconds about the implications of the above, L.i = H^i.f0 | f0 (- Foobles or, if I just want a high-level description, L contains the iterates of H over f0 depending on the need of the moment. -jn- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Neely joelDOTneelyATfedexDOTcom 901-263-4446