Re: Speed of light and relativity

stephen_at_nomail.com
Date: 10/19/04 

Date: 19 Oct 2004 18:17:46 GMT

Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
: Bilge wrote:

:> Paul Bramscher:
:>
:> >I agree. I have a B.S. in CSci and have taken both calc and discrete
:> >math (matrices, combinatorics, etc.). But the physics stuff is somewhat
:> >mystical to me. Operations and variables which aren't defined anywhere
:> >in a key.
:>
:> That's odd. I have lots of textbooks that define these things.
:> Do you expect every computer program to come with complete reference
:> to the language in which it's written and examples from the standards
:> committe regarding implementation issues? Do you expect every micro-
:> controller to use the same assembly instructions because no chip
:> vendor would consider it advantageous to exploit the advantages of
:> the chip if it meant being arcane?
:>
:> >I'm certain the math is not particularly profound, it's only
:> >the shorthand that makes no sense to someone not accustomed to what each
:> >symbol references. There should be a basic key somewhere, defining all
:> >symbols and all operations beyond ordinary math (+, -, /, *, squares,
:> >logs, trig, sums, limits, etc.)
:>
:> Which ones in particular?
:>
:> >If they'd demystify the damned formula, it might be open to greater
:> >scrutiny -- but they seem to take delight in "you don't understand"'s.
:> >Like the mystics of old, perhaps.
:>
:> There is nothing any more mystical about the formulae in physics
:> that there is in the difference between p, p[], *p, &p. If someone
:> walked up to you and said that programming was deliberately made
:> mysterious because he/she didn't understand the symbols, despite
:> having many years experience using word perfect,what do you suppose
:> you'd say?

: Depends on who my audience is. In programming we define our own
: variables. I use meaningful names only.

: I have no problem with physicsts using shortcuts for other physicists.
: I've just not seen much effort to render much of QM -- in undiluted
: format -- intelligible to someone with a reasonable amount of
: math/science background, but not a physics background.

: This is somewhat unique to physics. Most of the other sciences seem to
: have a much more intelligible and universal symbolic math about them.

I do not think it is unique to physics. An advanced Chemistry text is
not going to make much sense to a non-chemist.

Theoretical computer science papers are full of many a strange
equation.

:>
:> Do you think that by simply telling someone the meaning of a
:> declaration, like: char (*(*x[3])())[5] (a real example from K&R), along
:> with a few syntax rules, that person will be able to write programs just
:> because he recite the definitions and type up something which is
:> syntactically correct using his vast word perfect computer experience?

: I never use "x", since it's totally devoid of any semantic content --
: worthless by itself except as a placeholder. My variables read like a
: book: fileName, author, title, annotation, booleanString, recordID, etc.
: Most of the old c programmers write only for themselves (not even
: other programmers).

: So the example you cite above is unreadable without some deciphering,
: overly obtuse, and semantically lacking at the same time. Why do it,
: except for job security?

What would you have named 'x', and how would that name identify
x's type? The problem in that example is not that the name
x is short, it is figuring out what the type is.

So what would you use?

char (*(*yourDescriptiveNameGoesHere[3])())[5]

And would your name explain what the char, and the *'s and the []'s
do in general?

Stephen

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speed of light and relativity
    ... >>Like the mystics of old, ... > walked up to you and said that programming was deliberately made ... math/science background, but not a physics background. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: thought: "traditional" vs "programmer" math?...
    ... in particular, I am left thinking that, although both make use of math, ... beginner in physics and not yet even a beginner at what people who ... actually do mathematics would call mathematics. ... object-oriented programming paradigm. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The intelligent agent philosophy of thinking
    ... > I've made use of object-oriented programming in my coding life. ... Is the professor succeeding in teaching the class the basics of Physics. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Physicists as programmers
    ... They have degrees in physics. ... having the humility to admit his incapabilities in programming, ... the physicist had decided to take the input image, ... and give the smoothed input image as the verification ...
    (comp.programming)
  • hierarchy of phaenomena
    ... relativity into a logical order. ... I'm programming and there are a few usefull principles, ... that I want to use in analogy in physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)