From: "Wayne E. Seguin" <wayneeseguin@...>
Date: 2007-07-20T00:27:21+09:00
Subject: Re: The Pebble in the Ruby Shoe

--Apple-Mail-14-393211638
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed

On Jul 18, 2007, at 23:11 , Chad Perrin wrote:
> <snip>
> The fact that mathematicians these days tend to end up being  
> programmers
> does not translate to programmers tending to be mathematicians.   
> This is
> not a one-to-one correspondence.

I have had much first hand experience with programmers attempting to  
do Mathematics and I can honestly say it is a very gory sight for the  
majority of the attempts that I witnessed.

> As you say, the zero-based array is a practical matter related to the
> work of programming (as well as being related to the applicability  
> of set
> theory to language design), and not a convenience for those wacky
> mathematicians with their nonstandard way of counting (kind of a  
> strange
> claim to make).  In contrast with your implication that this is  
> somehow a
> *bad* practical decision, however, it's actually the case that, by and
> large, the benefits for natural sequential operations in  
> programming and
> the in-built compatibility of zero-based arrays with certain  
> concepts of
> set theory add up to a strikingly practical, and quite positive,  
> reason
> for zero-based arrays.
>
> In other words, your premises are largely correct, but they do not  
> lead
> to the conclusions you seem to suggest.

I couldn't agree more.

--
Wayne E. Seguin
Sr. Systems Architect & Systems Admin
wayneseguin@gmail.com




--Apple-Mail-14-393211638--