From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Tim Behrendsen" Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/09/09 Message-ID: <01bb9ded$cd0fdf00$32ee6fcf@timhome2>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 179359495 references: <01bb8df1$2e19d420$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4vcac4$gm6@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <01bb8f19$9a89d820$32ee6fce@timhome2> <841797763snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <322f864d.42836625@news.demon.co.uk> <01bb9bf9$61e9e0e0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <50sj6q$aci@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <01bb9d25$9cb3cb00$32ee6fcf@timhome2> <50v6k3$soo@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 organization: A-SIS mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Craig Franck wrote in article <50v6k3$soo@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > "Tim Behrendsen" wrote: > >Craig Franck wrote in article > > >> What if I just randomly guessed at the value of a > >> logic function? Is that procedural? How come one number popped into > >> my head and not another? > > > >To answer this question, we need to know what the algorithm > >is. Just coming up with a number in your head is an output, > >but what problem was solved by your coming up with the number? > > The point was that any system that had a person coming up with numbers > by letting them just "pop into thier heads" as opposed to say, doing > math and reporting the results, could not be fully described because > we don't know how the numbers are being generated. If this process > turned out to non-procedural then the system as a whole could not be > described as procedural. > [snip] This is the crux of the question. "If this process turned out to be non-procedural..." <--- this is impossible according to known laws of physics. Just because we don't know the procedure, doesn't mean there isn't one. Now, given our lack of knowledge on how the brain works, it may turn out that it is not deterministic, if the brain has truly random elements as some speculate (I doubt it, personally), but it would still be procedural and algorithmic. Could you mean "deterministic" when you say "procedural"? Going back to the SQL example, SQL is an expression of the algorithm, but it is not possible to "directly execute" SQL; it has to be translated into a procedural algorithm, and this is the same with all "non-procedural expression" languages. -- Tim Behrendsen (tim@a-sis.com)