Re: Dimension of sequences
Hello Fernando!
Fernando Bauer wrote:
>
> Igor Kachan wrote:
> >
[snipped]
> > Ok, suppose, we now have all these new definitions -
> > 'rectangular sequence' (RS), 'non-rectangular sequence' (NRS),
> > 'dimension of RS', 'dimension of NRS'.
>
> 'non-rectangular sequence' (NRS) = all sequences that aren't RS.
> 'dimension of RS' = maximum depth of the sequence.
> 'dimension of NRS' = that is the question!
Let's see the refman.doc file now.
Robert Craig wrotes:
"Sequences can be nested to any depth, i.e. you can have sequences within
sequences within sequences and so on to any depth (until you run out of
memory)."
I see Rob cares just about *maximum* depth here, so his definition
of depht, documented in refman.doc, is strongly equivalent to your
definition of 'dimension of RS'.
Same thing, you just introduce some new term, synonym.
No?
Then, I do not think now that the 'rectangular' word is very
good for your purpose, maybe, 'regular', as some short
for 'regularly nested', is better.
> > So what? What will we do with all these new terms, with
> > all these new notions, with all these new concepts?
>
> First of all, they facilitate our communication, since we don't have to say
> that whole definition phrase.
> Second, the terms RS and NRS can represent types in Euphoria, like vector or
> matrix, and so can be checked.
> Some algorithms can function with one and not with other type, etc..
Ok, but for now I do not see some real place for the 'dimension' word
here. Length & Depth. These old good words are very clear in
the specific EU context.
> > Euphoria itself is very simple language without complicated
> > abstractions. But can describe any complicated objects
> > using simple concept of sequence.
> >
> > > > But we must not confuse sequence itself and thing,
> > > > which is described with that sequence.
> >
> > Well, back to above your question, I do not think that someone
> > already knows how to define 'dimension of NRS' and so on and
> > for what purpose.
>
> Maybe this answer and others can be found in Tree theory which was
> more studied.
Maybe, but that theory is not a theory of EU sequences,
so you'll need to redifine some their terms into native
EU terms first of all, if there are needed to you
concepts in that theory.
>
> >
> > Ok, try to define it yourself, why not?
> > But remember please, Euphoria is simple thing, first of all.
> >
> > Good Luck!
>
> Thank you!
Good Luck again!
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
