Re: Grammatical Recursion
From: Jacques Guy (jguy_at_alphalink.com.au)
Date: 12/17/04
- Next message: koster_at_laurence.net: "Spanish questions"
- Previous message: Jacques Guy: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- In reply to: Greg Lee: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Next in thread: Des Small: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Des Small: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Rolleston: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Lee Sau Dan: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:13:02 +1000
Greg Lee wrote:
> As you say, recursion is not equivalent to iteration, contrary to
> what Jacques said.
Merde! I never wrote that. They are _functionally_ equivalent,
insofar as anything you do through recursive function calls,
you can do through simple iteration without function calls,
e.g.:
factorial = 1
for i=1 to n do
factorial = factorial * i
end for
> However, I don't see what is wrong with referring
> to iterative patterns as recursive.
They are not patterns, they are algorithms. In
plain English: "recipes", like in "first you do this,
next you do that". "Recursive" and "iterative"
describes how the algorithm is described, period.
And that says nothing about the pattern.
As I wrote in another post a few minutes ago
"put one more pebble in the bag" is self-referencing,
and recursive, and what-strikes-your-fancy. But
in plain English it's still "put one more pebble
in the bag". Wow!
- Next message: koster_at_laurence.net: "Spanish questions"
- Previous message: Jacques Guy: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- In reply to: Greg Lee: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Next in thread: Des Small: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Des Small: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Rolleston: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Reply: Lee Sau Dan: "Re: Grammatical Recursion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|