Re: Recursion & Reflection
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.inquiry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Re: Joel Isaacson At: https://hermes.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1011&L=cybcom&F=&S=&P=7443 Joel, It looks like we've run into one of those "so many meanings, so few words" situations, so let me see if I can split some hairs here. I often use the word "boundary" to talk about drawing distinctions -- calling and crossing and all that -- but here I am using "boundary" in the sense of a "boundary condition", so it is by definition the portion of a recursive computation that is set by arbitrary fiat, the way we define the factorial of 0 to be 1. In that metaphor, the recursive "step", the regular portion of the computation, falls into the "interior" of a computational regime, the way that we define factorial(n) to be n times factorial(n-1). I didn't really have much else to say the fractal case right now. It's just a thought that occurred to me one time in the context of writing a program for learning arbitrary formal languages and I began to wonder about the properties that distinguish "natural languages" from the simple-minded sorts we cook up as formal languages for logic, mathematics, and programming. Joel Isaacson wrote: > > Thanks, Jon, you make very good points > and raise some excellent questions. > > In regards to your question about computational spaces that > are "almost all boundary" I don't have a general answer, for > I simply don't know. I do have one specific instance, though, > where the response is positive. Namely, a very specific type > of recursive distinctioning. > > In that situation, beyond the initial base of "arbitrary data", all > manipulations are entirely in terms of boundaries. Thus new boundaries > recursively bound old boundaries, driven solely by distinction-making. > > I know that it is not intuitive for most people to think about > boundaries-of-boundaries (in perpetuity!) or to make distinctions > between boundaries. But this is exactly the kind of recursive > distinction-making process that I deal with. > > Ample technical detail is in: > > http://www.isss.org/2001meet/2001paper/4286330.pdf > > The distinction-making process (between boundaries) > is referred to therein as "Tetracoding". Recursive > Tetracoding is referred to as BIP. > > Best, > > -- Joel -- inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey knol: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3fkwvf69kridz/1 oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey