Paul Bramscher wrote:
: Bilge wrote:

: Paul Bramscher:
:
: I agree. I have a B.S. in CSci and have taken both calc and discrete
: math (matrices, combinatorics, etc.). But the physics stuff is somewhat
: mystical to me. Operations and variables which aren't defined anywhere
: in a key.
:
: That's odd. I have lots of textbooks that define these things.
: Do you expect every computer program to come with complete reference
: to the language in which it's written and examples from the standards
: committe regarding implementation issues? Do you expect every micro-
: controller to use the same assembly instructions because no chip
: vendor would consider it advantageous to exploit the advantages of
: the chip if it meant being arcane?
:
: I'm certain the math is not particularly profound, it's only
: the shorthand that makes no sense to someone not accustomed to what each
: symbol references. There should be a basic key somewhere, defining all
: symbols and all operations beyond ordinary math (+, -, /, *, squares,
: logs, trig, sums, limits, etc.)
:
: Which ones in particular?
:
: If they'd demystify the damned formula, it might be open to greater
: scrutiny -- but they seem to take delight in "you don't understand"'s.
: Like the mystics of old, perhaps.
:
: There is nothing any more mystical about the formulae in physics
: that there is in the difference between p, p[], *p, &p. If someone
: walked up to you and said that programming was deliberately made
: mysterious because he/she didn't understand the symbols, despite
: having many years experience using word perfect,what do you suppose
: you'd say?

: Depends on who my audience is. In programming we define our own
: variables. I use meaningful names only.

: I have no problem with physicsts using shortcuts for other physicists.
: I've just not seen much effort to render much of QM -- in undiluted
: format -- intelligible to someone with a reasonable amount of
: math/science background, but not a physics background.

: This is somewhat unique to physics. Most of the other sciences seem to
: have a much more intelligible and universal symbolic math about them.

I do not think it is unique to physics. An advanced Chemistry text is
not going to make much sense to a non-chemist.

Theoretical computer science papers are full of many a strange
equation.

:
: Do you think that by simply telling someone the meaning of a
: declaration, like: char (*(*x[3])())[5] (a real example from K&R), along
: with a few syntax rules, that person will be able to write programs just
: because he recite the definitions and type up something which is
: syntactically correct using his vast word perfect computer experience?

: I never use "x", since it's totally devoid of any semantic content --
: worthless by itself except as a placeholder. My variables read like a
: book: fileName, author, title, annotation, booleanString, recordID, etc.
: Most of the old c programmers write only for themselves (not even
: other programmers).

: So the example you cite above is unreadable without some deciphering,
: overly obtuse, and semantically lacking at the same time. Why do it,
: except for job security?

What would you have named 'x', and how would that name identify
x's type? The problem in that example is not that the name
x is short, it is figuring out what the type is.

So what would you use?

char (*(*yourDescriptiveNameGoesHere[3])())[5]

And would your name explain what the char, and the *'s and the []'s
do in general?

Stephen

wrote:

Paul Bramscher wrote:
: Bilge wrote:

: Paul Bramscher:
:
: I agree. I have a B.S. in CSci and have taken both calc and discrete
: math (matrices, combinatorics, etc.). But the physics stuff is somewhat
: mystical to me. Operations and variables which aren't defined anywhere
: in a key.
:
: That's odd. I have lots of textbooks that define these things.
: Do you expect every computer program to come with complete reference
: to the language in which it's written and examples from the standards
: committe regarding implementation issues? Do you expect every micro-
: controller to use the same assembly instructions because no chip
: vendor would consider it advantageous to exploit the advantages of
: the chip if it meant being arcane?
:
: I'm certain the math is not particularly profound, it's only
: the shorthand that makes no sense to someone not accustomed to what each
: symbol references. There should be a basic key somewhere, defining all
: symbols and all operations beyond ordinary math (+, -, /, *, squares,
: logs, trig, sums, limits, etc.)
:
: Which ones in particular?
:
: If they'd demystify the damned formula, it might be open to greater
: scrutiny -- but they seem to take delight in "you don't understand"'s.
: Like the mystics of old, perhaps.
:
: There is nothing any more mystical about the formulae in physics
: that there is in the difference between p, p[], *p, &p. If someone
: walked up to you and said that programming was deliberately made
: mysterious because he/she didn't understand the symbols, despite
: having many years experience using word perfect,what do you suppose
: you'd say?

: Depends on who my audience is. In programming we define our own
: variables. I use meaningful names only.

: I have no problem with physicsts using shortcuts for other physicists.
: I've just not seen much effort to render much of QM -- in undiluted
: format -- intelligible to someone with a reasonable amount of
: math/science background, but not a physics background.

: This is somewhat unique to physics. Most of the other sciences seem to
: have a much more intelligible and universal symbolic math about them.

I do not think it is unique to physics. An advanced Chemistry text is
not going to make much sense to a non-chemist.

Theoretical computer science papers are full of many a strange
equation.

:
: Do you think that by simply telling someone the meaning of a
: declaration, like: char (*(*x[3])())[5] (a real example from K&R), along
: with a few syntax rules, that person will be able to write programs just
: because he recite the definitions and type up something which is
: syntactically correct using his vast word perfect computer experience?

: I never use "x", since it's totally devoid of any semantic content --
: worthless by itself except as a placeholder. My variables read like a
: book: fileName, author, title, annotation, booleanString, recordID, etc.
: Most of the old c programmers write only for themselves (not even
: other programmers).

: So the example you cite above is unreadable without some deciphering,
: overly obtuse, and semantically lacking at the same time. Why do it,
: except for job security?

What would you have named 'x', and how would that name identify
x's type? The problem in that example is not that the name
x is short, it is figuring out what the type is.

So what would you use?

char (*(*yourDescriptiveNameGoesHere[3])())[5]

And would your name explain what the char, and the *'s and the []'s
do in general?

This should be rewritten for readability's sake.

http://www.technology.niagarac.on.ca...1638/cdcl.html

results:
x is array of pointers to a function returning a pointer to an array of char

I've never felt compelled to code that way. Just because it's possible
to obfuscate isn't reason enough to do so.

"greywolf42" wrote in message news
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
.. .

Ah, the standard Relativist snip-and-ignore.

What else is there to do when you post things as daft as this:

[Mingst]
I gave you many experiments that contradict your claim. You simply avoided
them by stating that they weren't done in a perfect inertial frame or a
perfect vacuum.

[Hogbin]
My claim was that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and an
inertial frame. Obviously experiments not in a vacuum or an inertial
frame cannot disprove this.

The rest of your post shows you have no idea about
physics in general.



Martin Hogbin

Paul Bramscher:
Bilge wrote:

Paul Bramscher:

I agree. I have a B.S. in CSci and have taken both calc and discrete
math (matrices, combinatorics, etc.). But the physics stuff is somewhat
mystical to me. Operations and variables which aren't defined anywhere
in a key.

That's odd. I have lots of textbooks that define these things.
Do you expect every computer program to come with complete reference
to the language in which it's written and examples from the standards
committe regarding implementation issues? Do you expect every micro-
controller to use the same assembly instructions because no chip
vendor would consider it advantageous to exploit the advantages of
the chip if it meant being arcane?

I'm certain the math is not particularly profound, it's only
the shorthand that makes no sense to someone not accustomed to what each
symbol references. There should be a basic key somewhere, defining all
symbols and all operations beyond ordinary math (+, -, /, *, squares,
logs, trig, sums, limits, etc.)

Which ones in particular?

If they'd demystify the damned formula, it might be open to greater
scrutiny -- but they seem to take delight in "you don't understand"'s.
Like the mystics of old, perhaps.

There is nothing any more mystical about the formulae in physics
that there is in the difference between p, p[], *p, &p. If someone
walked up to you and said that programming was deliberately made
mysterious because he/she didn't understand the symbols, despite
having many years experience using word perfect,what do you suppose
you'd say?

Depends on who my audience is. In programming we define our own
variables. I use meaningful names only.

In other words, you missed the point. Rather than make an unwarranted
assumption here, I'll try again and call those variables: temperature,
temperature[], *temperature and &temperature. I don't see how that
actually helps illustrate the point, since the name of the actual
variable had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I have no problem with physicsts using shortcuts for other physicists.
I've just not seen much effort to render much of QM -- in undiluted
format -- intelligible to someone with a reasonable amount of
math/science background, but not a physics background.

Perhaps, this will simplify things. The schroedinger equation,
is this partial differential equation,

i\hbar df(x,t)/dt = -(\hbar^2/2m) (d^2f(x,t)/dt^2) + g(x) f(x,t)

OK, now solve for f(x,t) and you're done. Anyone with a reasonable
math/science background will recognize that as a partial differential
equation. That takes care of the first couple of pages in an intro-
ductory quantum mechanics textbook. The rest of the two-semester course
and additional courses in graduate school are devoted to understanding
what it means. Personally, I think if you find the symbols used in
quantum mechanics to be esoteric and unintelligible, you're going to
have the same problem with classical mechanics, since quantum mechanics
is practically a verbatim transcription from classical mechanics in
which the classical poisson bracket becomes a quantum mechanical
commutator and E = p^2/2m + U(x) becomes the schroedinger equation
via the replacements E = i\hbar d/dt and p = -i\hbar\grad. The quantum
mechanical replacements for E and p are the most basic concept in
quantum mechanics, so if you didn't know that, nothing else will make
any sense whatsoever.

This is somewhat unique to physics. Most of the other sciences seem to
have a much more intelligible and universal symbolic math about them.

You really think so? Does that ``reasonable math/science'' background
tell you what the structure of 1,2-benzo-1,3-cycloheptadiene looks like
and make obvious why you might or might not find it useful? How about
if a biologist told you that amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a neurolgical
disorder affecting the anterior horn cells of spinal cord and motor
cranial nuclei and that an MRI will demonstrate wallerian degeneration
of the corticospinal and corticobulbar tracts? Is that pretty obvious
since it's written in simple english?

Do you think that by simply telling someone the meaning of a
declaration, like: char (*(*x[3])())[5] (a real example from K&R), along
with a few syntax rules, that person will be able to write programs just
because he recite the definitions and type up something which is
syntactically correct using his vast word perfect computer experience?

I never use "x", since it's totally devoid of any semantic content --
worthless by itself except as a placeholder.

Again, that misses the point (or in this case, pointer). Call the
declaration, char (*(*mass[3])())[5]. Same question. I would expect
a programmer to know what that means and when it might be a useful
declaration, but I think it's rather unreasonable for someone to
claim that programming has been made deliberately obtuse just because
they have a reasonable background in word perfect and dont understand
what that means.

My variables read like a
book: fileName, author, title, annotation, booleanString, recordID, etc.
Most of the old c programmers write only for themselves (not even
other programmers).

So the example you cite above is unreadable without some deciphering,
overly obtuse, and semantically lacking at the same time. Why do it,
except for job security?

So, are you saying that because K&R used `x' instead of something like
`recordID' in a stand alone example used to explain that the declaration
means, ``array[3] of pointer to function returning pointer to array[5] of
char'', that the point they intended to make was lost? If you really think
so, then I can see why you find quantum mechanics and physics unintelligeble.
You keep mistaking some irrelevant choice of letters for the point being
made. You seemed to that here, even though I went to the effort to use the
fact that you said you did programming in order to give you examples of
how ridiculous it would be for someone to claim that programming was
deliberately made obtuse because it was unintelligible to a person with a
``reasonable computer background'' when ``reasonable computer background''
meant using word perfect to type memos.

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
news
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message
...

Ah, the standard Relativist snip-and-ignore.

What else is there to do when you post things as daft as this:

[Mingst]
I gave you many experiments that contradict your claim. You simply
avoided them by stating that they weren't done in a perfect inertial
frame or a perfect vacuum.

[Hogbin]
My claim was that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and an
inertial frame. Obviously experiments not in a vacuum or an inertial
frame cannot disprove this.

The rest of your post shows you have no idea about
physics in general.

Well, Martin, you've been reduced to simply ad hominem insults. So, goodbye
in this thread.

What you *should* have done was to pick any one experiment that you think
provides support for your view. Since there is no such experiment (but you
were afraid to admit it), you snipped, insulted, and ran.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}