Some questions on Slate syntax

[Lee Salzman]

Wait, so you're saying I can't observe that I don't have something? Hmm, 
I guess I don't really observe
that I don't have a million dollars or that I don't have a Ferrarri? I 
can very clearly observe the absence
of things. There is a joke about what brought down the Roman empire...

Lee

Shaping wrote:

> [...] 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>