Thank you very much for your answers. I'm afraid that, at this stage, I must prevent myself from "knowing too much" about the subject. My idea here is trying to fill the gaps, mostly, using intuition. What I do here is to try to "understand". That's different from just knowing. Knowledge growth must be consequence of understanding's increasing. As the scope of my understanding increases, the more I look for increasing my knowledge. Never vice versa, because, knowing isn't like to be right, it's just knowing.
Greg: your point is that ------------------------------------- >>> 12**34 492223524295202670403711324312 2008064L The input is 6 characters long, and the output is 37 characters long. Is that more "economical"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- and that's a good one. But take in account that with "shortening" I refer to "according to Python's axiomatic parameters". What's "shorten" if expressed in Python? For example: I'm plainly aware that the word "python" looks shorten than "01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110". But it's shorten just for me and you and maybe for every single human, not for the computer. You type "python", and the language (so to speak) thinks "in my opinion you're not being economical enough coz with this you mean 01110000 01111001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01101110", and then mirrors the supposedly result in its particular context. My "shorten" points to what's shorten during and inside Python's runtime. Maybe It'd be good if I explain myself a bit more. What I'm trying here is to grasp Python from the game's abstraction point of view, as if it were, for example, chess. That's why I need a real_player to point me to: (so to speak, I wish I could express the ideas according to the python's syntax but that's out of my scope by now) games.python.board(like the chessboard but in abstract) # with board I'm not necessarily referring to the black on Python's command line or any other substitutes for that, but to its axiomatic context. Which are those unchangeable things that limit so firmly the dynamics of the game, and that in this context must be considered like hardware, the most material part of Python. Coz (in my neophyte opinion) these are the things that (in a more or less obvious way) limit "the dynamic of any attempt to introduce a change in this game". games.python.pieces(a finite number of named elements) # one example of what in Python (unless for me) seems to look like pieces are python.keywords(python2). Might be more entities that can be considered like pieces... games.python.start(the position that each piece must assume over the given board in order to conform "the sign of this kind of game's starting point") # following the example of the only pieces I've recognized so far, I would drive myself to think about the state of python.keywords Of course with "state" I could be referring to any kind of state. The only clue is that, as far I can see, is expected that those hypothetical states come in pairs, like state(available, unavailable) games.python.end(game's final point or highest achievement) #I never forget that checkmate is just a sign that can be observed looking at the board or "axiomatic structure that in the game remains static". That end_sign usually is, no more nor less than a transformation of the start_sign, transformation that, sometimes, shorten it. games.python.pieces.behavior(the legal or non erroneous modifications that can be made to the start_sign in order to convert it to end_sign) games.python.player.rear.avoid(what it must be avoided by any legal -non erroneous- means) # seems to be that the kind of things to be avoided are not precisely making errors, since Python will tell. Making errors is just something that's so illegal that simply doesn't take place. With "avoid" I mean what happens when you get checked by running code that doesn't lead to any error messages but at the same time doesn't give the expected result. My goal right now is to produce one or more abstracts that explain (mainly for myself but extensive to others) about how I deal with some problems related to our "search for emphaty" nature at the time of what we tend to consider "interaction" (learning to write in Python in interactive mode, or just programming, is one of that cases). In essence, due to Python's lack of empathy, one must adopt its shape and ways to (so to speak) "interact" with it. Python could be considered like a solitary game, and in my opinion could be taken as it is from the beginning, in order to properly understand what one exactly is doing. That seems to be the best way to properly "understand" Python; then knowledge will come, naturally as a perfect search of, exactly, the things that "understanding" needs. Any clue about this would be highly appreciated. 2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> > Hi, > this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original > purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At > this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to > Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of > view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an > "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication > about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in > the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about > Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity > it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result > one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I > roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic > mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer types > on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, > but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for > example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears > between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but > expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the > apostrophes). > > So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that > mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the > most shortened expression of that data? > > Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that > programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the > lowest level of it's existence. > > Thanks a lot for your time. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ¿Has leído «Las Novelas Prohibidas» <http://lasnovelasprohibidas.com/>?
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
