Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers
On 2013-05-14, Citizen Kant citizenk...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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 . -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fwd: Python for philosophers
2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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_Pythonhttp://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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fwd: Python for philosophers
From: llanitedave llanited...@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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fwd: Python for philosophers
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Python for philosophers
? 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 citizenk...@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
Re: Python for philosophers
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 0111 0001 01110100 01101000 0110 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 0111 0001 01110100 01101000 0110 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 citizenk...@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
Python for philosophers
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. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
