This is a discussion on Books on recursive programming? - Unix ; Aaron Hsu writes: > Rainer Weikusat writes: >> Aaron Hsu writes: >>> Rainer Weikusat writes: [...] >>>>> I am not talking about the state of execution. >>>> >>>> Then you are not talking about recursive algorithms, either, and >>>> actually, ...
> Rainer Weikusat
>> Aaron Hsu
>>> Rainer Weikusat
>>>>> I am not talking about the state of execution.
>>>> Then you are not talking about recursive algorithms, either, and
>>>> actually, you aren't even talking about algorithms at all.
>>> Alright, then what am I talking about?
>> Things you heard elsewhere and have chosen to repeat without thinking
>> about them, most likely, because they had sufficent organizational
>> authority attached to it that this seemed to be a wise course of
> At this point you've ceased making any applicable point.
The applicable point would be that you continue to post superficially
thought-out 'boilerplate nonsense', using some parts of the texts I
wrote as platform to place them on, ignoring whatever doesn't appear
to be suitable for doing so, as continously just passing over anything
which could be considered to be relevant detail. Unsubstantiated
theories about 'how to world ought to look like', as opposed to how it
actually does, belong into the realm of either philosophy or religion.
> I am curious to know in your mind how you deal with the theoretical
> discussion of algorithms outside of the specific hardware on which
> they are implemented.
No 'specific hardware' had been mentioned so far.
> It is VERY reasonable to speak about computation and the
> methods of computation outside of actual physical hardware.
It is not reasonable and actually, not even possible, to discuss
'algorithms', ie formalized descriptions of procedures intended to
accomplish certain things, without actually refering to the steps
the procedure itself is composed of.
> If you think we can only discuss recursion and iteration on the
> level of a machine to run it on, and that algorithms must
> necessarily be thought of only in terms of what happens on the
> machine, then you are wrong.
I'd suggest that you discuss this with the person whose idea it is:
And maybe publish at least one larger book on the topic being widelay
recognized as 'seminal'.