ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOSforcontrolledvalues

 To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" "Rich Cooper" Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:36:27 -0700 <20101015133636.C4375138D07@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Infinite precision arithmetic repeatedly adds another computer word to represent numbers that overflow with the current number of words. You were talking about carries propagating across a word, remember? So if you add 1 to 2^32-1, you get a two word number in 64 bits instead of a one word number in 32 bits, and the execution time is no longer linear. The number keeps getting bigger as needed to represent the new value, adding one word of precision as needed. That makes it recursive in the sense of precision representation; there is no end to the number of such words that can be added on overflow. That is what makes it recursive, and that is what makes it increasing in time and space consumption.    (01) But an iterator, by my definition, for good practice, must not be recursive in that it is must take a fixed time and space consumption during operation, otherwise the time and space are not linear for each execution of the iterator. Recursive calls to the same function results in an unlimited expense in time and space, and therefore is not good practice for an iterator. Math is ideal in its behavior; computers aren't. So a recursive function is not an iterator in my sense of that word. Translate to your own method of expressing that fact to get the point.    (02) -Rich    (03) Sincerely, Rich Cooper EnglishLogicKernel.com Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (04) -----Original Message----- From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randall R Schulz Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:34 PM To: [ontolog-forum] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOSforcontrolledvalues for controlledvocabulary]    (05) On Thursday October 14 2010, Rich Cooper wrote: > There is a version of Lisp which incorporates infinite precision > arithmetic. You might find an iterator of the kind you are looking > for there.    (06) That is a complete nonsequitur. My point is that your criterion about the absence of an underlying iterative process for something to be iterative cannot be met. Switching to infinite-precision arithmetic does not make that go away, it just makes it unbounded.    (07) Computing the successor of the following number (shown in binary):    (08) 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111    (09) on a contemporary computer that uses binary representation of integers will require 60 iterations of its carry algorithm. So the INC instruction (as well as ADD, MUL, DIV and all the other arithmetic operations defined by that processor) of necessity invoke underlying iterative processes. So by your criterion, it is impossible to realize an iteration on such a processor.    (010) > .... > > -Rich    (011) Randall Schulz    (012) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (013) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (014) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] HOL decidability [Was: using SKOS forcontrolled values for controlledvocabulary], (continued)