Some questions on Slate syntax

[Shaping]

> Wait, so you're saying I can't observe that I don't have something?

No, that is not what I said.

 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

But you do not intended to count /absences/ in general (and these would be 
indistinct and useless, anyway).  You do this in an exceptional way as your 
first step--and this is the mistake.  Indeed, one counts not absence, but 
presence.  You are mixing different ideas in the same operational continuum 
(counting).  The mistake is being made between your first step (0) and second 
step (1).  The two are non-sequitar if you intended to hold to natural order. 
You are free, of course, to indulge arbitrary abstractions, but do not call the 
resulting operation /natural counting/.  I suggest normalizing:  eliminate the 
incongruous first step.


Shaping

>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>