That was a lot of words to say "because the languages we use to solve problems is naturally recursive."
[deleted]
Why recursive data structures?
21–30 of 129 posts
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that TFA pokes fun at the word in the very first footnote, I took this comment to be mostly in jest. But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. There is sometimes a problem (I wouldn't use personal terms to describe it, but still) where technical terms are slung about without regard for whether peop…
> But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. I disagree. Half the reason I come here is to be exposed to new ideas or concepts. This isn't a lecture, I'll gladly take time to learn about a new concept if it seems relevant.
Fair enough, and here is an interesting thing: In a talk, if you stop to explain every technical term, you break up the flow and make it tedious for those who know the words.
But in a web article, we have hyperlinks, footnotes, asides, and other devices for allowing some readers to skim and others to dive in.
So to me, the choice for whether to use a word in an essay is different than the choice for whether to use a word in a talk at a conference, which is different than the choice for whether to use a word in a conversation where I am familiar with the participants.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that TFA pokes fun at the word in the very first footnote, I took this comment to be mostly in jest. But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. There is sometimes a problem (I wouldn't use personal terms to describe it, but still) where technical terms are slung about without regard for whether peop…
> But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. I disagree. Half the reason I come here is to be exposed to new ideas or concepts. This isn't a lecture, I'll gladly take time to learn about a new concept if it seems relevant.
Since we're on the subject of recursion, there is a problem when somebody uses a term that they only understand 90%. Somebody else reads that and understands 90%, and then they use, and then another person reads it...
And then we arrive in the current situation where people use terms like "rainbow table" or "HFT" to describe who knows what.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#24I love the word "isomorphic". It's by far the most efficient word in the English language. When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. When you use it in a conversation, the same is also true. It's only ever acceptable in written contexts or if you happen to be Douglas Hofstadter.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Pretentious or not, the term is used erroneously here.
Recursive data structures and recursive algorithms are, quite plainly, not isomorphic. They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing.
Something that is isomorphic to a recursive function that works on a quadtree would be an imperative function that works on a quadtree with identical functionality.
tl;dr: I think the author meant "synergistic".
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Pretentious or not, the term is used erroneously here. Recursive data structures and recursive algorithms are, quite plainly, not isomorphic. They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing. Something that is isomorphic to a recursive function that works on a quadtree would be an imperative function that works on a quadtree with identical functionality. tl;dr: I think the author meant "synergistic".
I don’t know that an algorithm and a data structure have to be equivalent representations of the same thing to be isomorphic. In the case of the algorithm, is it the code that must be equivalent? Or the runtime behaviour?
The runtime behaviour of the ‘whirling regions’ algorithm clearly is not an equivalent representation of the two-dimensional array representation of an image. However, the runtime behaviour of the quadtree algorithm exactly matches the quadtree data structure.
This is my proposition: That what matters is whether the algorithmic behaviour is equivalent. I would say the same thing about `binrec` matching a binary tree.
...Or at least, I would have, up until today. I am open to being disabused of this notion.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Pretentious or not, the term is used erroneously here. Recursive data structures and recursive algorithms are, quite plainly, not isomorphic. They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing. Something that is isomorphic to a recursive function that works on a quadtree would be an imperative function that works on a quadtree with identical functionality. tl;dr: I think the author meant "synergistic".
"Isomorphic" literally means "of the same shape".
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretentious or not, the term is used erroneously here. Recursive data structures and recursive algorithms are, quite plainly, not isomorphic. They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing. Something that is isomorphic to a recursive function that works on a quadtree would be an imperative function that works on a quadtree with identical functionality. tl;dr: I think the author meant "synergistic".
I don’t know that an algorithm and a data structure have to be equivalent representations of the same thing to be isomorphic. In the case of the algorithm, is it the code that must be equivalent? Or the runtime behaviour? The runtime behaviour of the ‘whirling regions’ algorithm clearly is not an equivalent representation of the two-dimensional array representation of an image. However, the runtime behaviour of the q…
Isomorphic means "have the same shape". It means that there is some structural property that the two objects have in common. The more interesting/complex the property is (and the more superficially different the two objects look), the more defensible the use of the word is.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Pretentious or not, the term is used erroneously here. Recursive data structures and recursive algorithms are, quite plainly, not isomorphic. They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing. Something that is isomorphic to a recursive function that works on a quadtree would be an imperative function that works on a quadtree with identical functionality. tl;dr: I think the author meant "synergistic".
> They are not two equivalent representations of the same thing.
Algorithms encoded as a program end up as an abstract syntax tree in the compiler. Algorithm -> Data structure. The compiler then turns that ast into some other representation (e.g. machine instructions, JavaScript) which is again the algorithm. Data structure -> algorithm. Bijection identified.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#29Quadtrees are neat. Though I guess general purpose image processing would be better served by either raster or vector representation. Maybe a better showcase would be something like collision detection or geospatial indexing.
Re: Why recursive data structures?
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Considering that TFA pokes fun at the word in the very first footnote, I took this comment to be mostly in jest. But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. There is sometimes a problem (I wouldn't use personal terms to describe it, but still) where technical terms are slung about without regard for whether peop…
You're correct. I was trying to make a joke.
Didn't go over very well. So it goes.