Some questions on Slate syntax

[Shaping]

[...] Counting and
> ordering are just entirely different concepts to me.

Think about that statement, one more time, very slowly, whilst focusing only on 
the observable.

>
> It's all pretty arbitrary and to call it "natural principle" is a bit of an 
> exaggeration.

If you mean /counting and ordering/ what can be observed (not conceived), then 
starting at 1 is not only natural, it is the only possibility.


> I have friends who the mere thought of a number scares them and throws them 
> into
> mental paralysis. So "natural principle" in this case may be better described 
> as the
> lore of mathematicians. Then again, depending on who you talk to, 0 is an 
> ordinal
> number, doh! But if I am going to choose some arbitrary theoretical


You need not choose a theoretical anything.  Just observe.  Don't think so much. 
Counting starts at 1, because the smallest number of things you can /observe/ is 
1.  I'm pushing this observation, somewhat, because it has powerful implications 
for the structure of computing machinery, which, when changed accordingly, will 
help you advance computing language, too.

> stance, I will
> choose the one that is handiest for the domain, computers.

It is practical.

The domain, here, is not the computing machine.  The computing machine is a 
constraint.  The domain is the space-time-logic problem you express, model, and 
exercise with the language running on the machine.

Intellectual expediency can cause mental blind-spots in the long run.  Use with 
care.


Shaping

>
> Shaping wrote:
>
>>> It's not just tailored more to how computers work. When it
>>> comes down to it, it makes as much intuitive sense as any
>>> other way. Starting from the origin, how far away is some
>>> thing? Giving you a spatial metaphor for working with items
>>> I would argue makes it easier to see in your head what you're
>>> doing. I can easily visualize grid space, but I can't easily
>>> visualize a jumble of objects that I've counted.
>>
>> Becareful not to confuse continuous measurement with discrete counting.  Both 
>> have their uses.  If you can count/order, do that because it is more basic 
>> than ruling/measuring on a continuous axis.  Note the essential difference:
>> --------------------
>>    1      2     ...
>> 0.0   1.0    2.0 ...
>> --------------------
>>
>>>
>>> Counting makes sense to me for talking about the size of a
>>> collection, but really makes no intuitive sense to me elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> Then think "order" not "size", and clarity will return.
>>
>>> Now, maybe I have been programming too long and have built
>>> up a new set of intuitions,
>>
>>
>> Indeed, all of us, but these conditionings do not preclude realignment with 
>> natural principle, both in computer language and hardware structure (which is 
>> yet to happen).
>>
>>
>> Shaping
>>
>>
>
>