Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedWarrior0]

I mostly agree with Kai here:
 

The answer is it's just semantic nonsense

 Of course, if you require a change, either of these is perfectly fine:

It's easy, you start at 0

An alternative solution to the problem is to count in reverse, one could go "7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1" and would fulfill the commitment of stating that they were counting to one.

[kaijyuu]

You can have a list of only one number o.O At least in every definition of the term I've ever heard. Heck you can have a list with 0 numbers!

And yeah, you getting caught up on "to" is why I'm saying it's semantic nonsense that's tripping everyone up. My argument is that the phrase "counting to" refers to rattling off a list of numbers in a specific fashion (and see above assertion about lists), and that the meanings of the words "counting" and "to" are irrespective of that.

Context is also important in these sort of metaphysical distinctions about concepts and actions. If you're at the store, and someone asks you "did you go to the store," they're probably asking whether you were here earlier. They're asking if you changed physical locations. If the same person is nuts, and asks you to go to the store, despite being in the store already, you can honestly say you fulfilled their request despite not actually moving, because they didn't ask you to change locations but to be in a certain one. Note that both questions had "to" in them but referred to entirely different actions.


Another way to explain it I just thought of: Let's look into the logical action of counting through some pseudocode. You start with a number, and ask yourself "am I at the destination yet?" If yes, you quit, if not, you add one and loop. Pseudocode:

Variable X is equal to StartingNumber
While X < EndingNumber, X = X + 1

The question being asked each time is if X is less than the ending number. So if the StartingNumber and EndingNumber are the same (1), the action was still fulfilled. The "CountToX" function (or whatever) was run. Asking whether it ever looped is an entirely different question.

[Ehndras]

Damn it its too early in the morning for math!

[kaijyuu]

It's okay, Ehndras. We won't judge if preschool math is too much for you

[miauw62]

My friend somehow got a stripe of chalk at the back of his neck.
But then it started becoming itchy as fuck and incredibly red.

[kaijyuu]

Allergy, perhaps?

[miauw62]

Yeah, but he said he wasnt alergic to chalk. We all agreed that it was some kind of alergic reaction tough.

[Pnx]

Might have been some kind of itching powder or something then.

[GlyphGryph]

Kaij, you are the one arguing semantics here by trying to change the definitions of words. There is no reason we should be having a semantic argument about a common, and well defined word, except that you WANT it to mean something different so your answer will be correct.

But there's one simple way to resolve this - go to the source. If the question was intended in the way you interpret it, with the meanings your choosing to ascribe (meaning if the question was what you wanted it to be, rather than the question as I understood it) then the answer would be obvious and thus there'd be no point in asking at all. Therefore, most likely, your interpretation is wrong - made more obvious by your attempt to replace common words with jargon definitions, which CLEARLY weren't intended. Of course, the original asker can always clarify.

As for lists...
You can not, in fact, have a list of zero objects. Unless you try to argue semantics ang give the word definitions that describe a far different concept than the one most people conceive of when considering a "list". But then, again, it is YOU who is arguing semantics at that point "Of course this is a this, as long as I define this to describe this". It's trivially true, but also incredibly contrary to effective communication.

Are you trying to say that in normal, everyday, common english, or even academic english, that "to" doesn't describe moving from one thing to another thing?

[Levi]

I'm guessing Kaij is a programmer.  I think of lists as able to be empty as well. 

[Nadaka]

The null set is a set of no values, or more accurately it is a set that contains only the null set. A list is merely a set with the restriction on duplicate values lifted. So, even in math a list can have 0 or more member values.

[GlyphGryph]

I am ALSO a programmer. I have a few mutually exclusive definitions for list structures, including logical ones and industry ones. I am perfectly capable of avoiding mixing those with each other, or with the common english definition. Which is a good thing, since many of them are mutually contradictory.

Thus, I /probably/ wasn't talking about logical, mathematical, or programmatical lists. Else my statement would have been absurd and meaningless. This is exactly what the problem is.

None of those concepts should be confused with the independent concept from which they took their name, anymore than my saying "This suitcase is quite light! I should be able to carry it no problem!" should cause you to claim it allows me to see in an otherwise dark room, or that it has a very pale colour.

And how a "variable" in C++ is not a "variable" in Ruby, and other things like that.

[kaijyuu]

I'm guessing Kaij is a programmer.

Yup!



Honestly I just read over my past two posts and *I* could barely understand them. At this point I'm willing to agree to disagree, simply because I can't seem to debate straight philosophy on semantics right now.

I still stand by my assertion that the reason this question is difficult in the first place is due to the vagueness and failings of language. Not that something other than English would be better, but rather that everyone has slightly different conceptions of things, and finding those differences to solve a problem like this is a pain in the ass. IE, it's semantic nonsense. We either agree in concept but disagree on what terms to use, or are using the same terms for two distinct and separate concepts (or some of both).


Word problems that emphasize these things can be fun, but also really tedious

[Hanslanda]

Basically this whole argument has made me 'WTF?'

[GlyphGryph]

I do certainly prefer my word problems (and communication) to be clear. A great many problems see to come down to semantics - which is why it's all the more important that we avoid jumping to definitions that clearly make no sense in the given context, and to insure our own definitions remain consistent and clear throughout the discussion.

The sooner we can agree on a common frame of reference within which to hold the conversation, the better - and you YOU leave the frame of reference so as to (for example) bring in jargon from the mathematics or programming arena's, that only damages our ability to converse (unless you explicitly mention that you're bringing in an alternative reference and a reason for it - maybe saying "Okay, but maybe we SHOULD be able to do it this way - if we approach it from this angle, we can see similar definitions that allows this properly, so perhaps we should recontextualize to allow them?)