And "variable" is variable. Not constant. On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Boyko Bantchev <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 April 2011 04:23, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > I was simply trying to point out that you chose to apply the meaning of > > "between" not from the J terminology of "between" but from some other > > context where it is not clear of order. J documentation makes it very > clear > > for J context. > > Does it? How? I don't believe `between' is some notion specific > to J. I don't see a definition of it. Between is between, let's > not put a halo of specialness around it. > > > A variable in mathematics is quite different > > than that in computer programming languages. > > The word variable originated in mathematics, and is used differently > in imperative languages but with the same as the mathematical meaning > in (purely or mostly purely) functional languages. > It's just that the notion of varying is different in math and the > latter kind of languages, compared to what one can be used to in > imperative programming. > > > On 14 April 2011 05:13, Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That was exactly my point: People need to learn arithmetic before > > they can understand mathematical definitions of arithmetic. > > No, you maintained quite a different stand (to which I objected): > that in DoJ -- which for J is supposed to be the analogue of the > formal definition of arithmetic -- it is normal to have circular > definitions; that I should consider the definitions of \ and > determinant and who knows what else as part of the definition of /. > > The structure and content of a defining document have nothing to do > with `learning arithmetic'. There is /, and there are \, \., and > many others. If the examples accompanying the definitions of the > latter happen do use /, that's ok, but these examples are not > *the* definition of /, not even `parts of it', as you insist. > > Or, to repeat what I've already said, > > > In all more or less formally presented systems (which, I assume, a > > programming language definition ought to be) these things work in the > > opposite direction: first establish a definition, then use it in further > > definitions and applications. > > >> All I have been proposing is replacing the not sufficiently clear > >> definition of / with a clear one -- just what is expected from a > >> definition. > > > > But, of course, the dictionary's illustrations clear up that issue for > > people with enough background. > > I am forced to repeat myself again: > > >> Examples are not a substitute for definitions -- they are just an > >> illustrative aid. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
