Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > no of ID's in CSS

Reply
Thread Tools

no of ID's in CSS

 
 
Leif K-Brooks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
mbstevens wrote:
> mbstevens wrote:
>
>> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> An arbitrary number can be used with streams, but an infinite number can
>>> not be used. You may be able to use 10**googolplex IDs, but that's still
>>> finite.

>>
>> Integers are known to be infinite because we understand how any
>> arbetrary integer can be generated from the previous one.
>>
>> We also understand how to do this with members of streams, as streams
>> are theoretically concieved. Time, computer resources, and doggedness
>> have nothing to do with it.

>
> Or, more precisely, a stream is just a sequence of data objects.
> We understand how to _process_ a particular data object based on
> some of the previous data objects.


Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
will always contain a finite number.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
Leif K-Brooks wrote:

> Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
> generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
> has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
> document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
> will always contain a finite number.


Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?

(This is not intended to be a dig at you, most people do not understand the
full mathemical concept of infinity. At University (when I was there, at
least) its treatment was defered till at least the 200 level, and the
higher level at that. I did a full semester unit on "transfinite
arithmetic". Definitely not maths 101)

The stream *will* contain an infinite number of objects. After infinite time
has elapsed.

It will then contain aleph0 objects, aleph0 being the number of counting
numbers (1,2,3...).

In effect the word "never" becomes null and void at eternity so your
statement becomes
"... will <null/> reach a point where ...".

Recall the words of the Bairds "Hamlet", typewriters, and an infinite number
of monkeys

Back on topic, a web page *can* have an infinite number of ID's, but only if
it is infinitely long. This does not worry us though since we have infinite
time available to scroll our viewport down said page.

In *our* real world, of course, everything is finite, unless of course you
can deliver that that web page with infinite bandwidth and have an infinite
viewport with which to view it

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
Leif K-Brooks wrote:
> mbstevens wrote:
>
>>mbstevens wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif K-Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>An arbitrary number can be used with streams, but an infinite number can
>>>>not be used. You may be able to use 10**googolplex IDs, but that's still
>>>>finite.
>>>
>>>Integers are known to be infinite because we understand how any
>>>arbetrary integer can be generated from the previous one.
>>>
>>>We also understand how to do this with members of streams, as streams
>>>are theoretically concieved. Time, computer resources, and doggedness
>>>have nothing to do with it.

>>
>>Or, more precisely, a stream is just a sequence of data objects.
>>We understand how to _process_ a particular data object based on
>>some of the previous data objects.

>
>
> Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
> generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
> has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
> document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
> will always contain a finite number.


Assume, for example, a 1:1 mapping between members of the stream and
data objects generated from the stream. If the stream is infinite, the
generated data objects are infinite.

It's the same way we can generate the sequences:

Original sequence: 2 4 6 8 ............
Derived sequence: 3 5 7 9 ..............

You wouldn't claim that the derived sequence is finite, would you?

There is a vast difference between mathmatical infinity and physical
possibilities.


 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
rf wrote:
> Leif K-Brooks wrote:
>
>
>>Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
>>generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
>>has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
>>document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
>>will always contain a finite number.

>
>
> Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?
>
> (This is not intended to be a dig at you, most people do not understand the
> full mathemical concept of infinity. At University (when I was there, at
> least) its treatment was defered till at least the 200 level, and the
> higher level at that. I did a full semester unit on "transfinite
> arithmetic". Definitely not maths 101)
>
> The stream *will* contain an infinite number of objects. After infinite time
> has elapsed.


We don't even need to think of it temporally. For instance, there _are_
infinite integers. If we specify a sequence derived from the sequence
of integers, then we have simply specified the sequence. It might be
either denumerable or uncountable, as shown by Cantor's diagonal
argument, but it still is, and it is infinite.


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
mbstevens wrote:
rf wrote:

> > The stream *will* contain an infinite number of objects. After infinite

time
> > has elapsed.

>
> We don't even need to think of it temporally. For instance, there _are_
> infinite integers. If we specify a sequence derived from the sequence
> of integers, then we have simply specified the sequence. It might be
> either denumerable or uncountable, as shown by Cantor's diagonal
> argument, but it still is, and it is infinite.


Are you talking about the physical object (the "stream") or our use of it
("streaming" it)?

Your statement above is true for the <noun>stream</noun> object, the thing
you can point at on your [infinite] disk drive, the infinite CSS or, say,
MPEG file.

However the *verb* stream, as in "streaming the CSS file", does introduces
time. That is what streaming means, stream (and play) it in real time. Your
words: "re-implement the CSS parser to use streams" imply the time domain. I
assumed you to mean with your original statement that we can not transport
an infinite file and parse it all at once so lets stream it into the CSS
parser, over time.

Suddenly in there somewhere however you canged from the verb stream to the
noun stream.

To be able to <verb>stream</verb> the object we need infinite time, unless
we have infinite bandwidth to hand.

To play an infinite MPEG requires infinite time, unless we play it at an
infinite number of frames per second (once again, with infinite bandwidth)
and then we can of course choose whatever time span we like for the
"duration" of that MPEG

All of this is making my brain hurt. Thank &deity it's now the cocktail hour
and I can feed it a beer

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
rf wrote:
> mbstevens wrote:
> rf wrote:
>
>
>>>The stream *will* contain an infinite number of objects. After infinite

>
> time
>
>>>has elapsed.

>>
>>We don't even need to think of it temporally. For instance, there _are_
>>infinite integers. If we specify a sequence derived from the sequence
>>of integers, then we have simply specified the sequence. It might be
>>either denumerable or uncountable, as shown by Cantor's diagonal
>>argument, but it still is, and it is infinite.

>
>
> Are you talking about the physical object (the "stream") or our use of it
> ("streaming" it)?


Neither. I am talking about it as a mathmatical (or at least logical)
construct -- noting to do with physical reality at all. If
we can properly specify how the stream's members are to be processed,
then the stream of derived objects has quite simply been specified.


> However the *verb* stream, as in "streaming the CSS file", does introduces
> time. That is what streaming means, stream (and play) it in real time.


I would say that it introduces the concept of sequence, but
does not _necessarily_ bring in the concept of time.

> Your
> words: "re-implement the CSS parser to use streams" imply the time domain.


A parser could be using a stream that _is_
infinite (in the mathmatical or logical sense).
For instance, it could be processing the set of
integers.

That the parser couldn't _actually_ do the
entire process physically was the joke.
You did catch the smiley?

Where anything mathmatically, logically,
or set theoreticaly infinite is concerned, we can
specify. Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
_is_. Just not in a physical sense.



 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2005
mbstevens wrote:

> Where anything mathmatically, logically,
> or set theoreticaly infinite is concerned, we can
> specify. Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
> _is_. Just not in a physical sense.


W.V.O. Quine also had a sterling version. "To be is to be the value
of a bound variable."
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2005
> From: mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
> _is_. Just not in a physical sense.
>


I don't think existence has different senses. If a and b exist, then they
exist in exactly the same sense. It is tempting to suppose that a cup of
coffee can exist in a physical sense whereas a ghost or god or number or
class can exist in a non-physical sense, but this is not so. Things either
exists or they don't. If the cup exists then it is certainly a physical
object. If it was not a physical object, it would not exist. It would not
exist in a non-physical way. This is not because non-physical objects can't
exist (numbers may well do so). The fundamental reason for all this is that
there are no *ways* in which things exist. They either exist or they don't.
The existence itself is pure and has no qualities.

By the way - because this would really be getting too far off the OP's
original question and I am a firm believer in sticking to topic - this is
partly why God does not exist ...

dorayme

 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2005
dorayme wrote:
>>From: mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>>Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
>>_is_. Just not in a physical sense.
>>

>
>
> I don't think existence has different senses. If a and b exist, then they
> exist in exactly the same sense.


Some have given up arguing about 'existence' altogether because the word
has been beaten to death during the last 200 years. If you look back
through the thread you'll notice I never used it once. I was using
"is". That was more than semantic sugaring -- it is a word less closely
tied to ontology/metaphysics. But I probably should have said
"it just doesn't have any physicality" instead of "is... Just not in a
physical sense."

>It is tempting to suppose that a cup of
> coffee can exist in a physical sense whereas a ghost or god or number or
> class can exist in a non-physical sense, but this is not so. Things either
> exists or they don't.


You're definitely leaning toward Quine's camp.
"To be is to be the value of a bound variable."
These waters are too muddy to be thrashed out here.
But have a look at the old analytic/synthetic distinction
just to be sure you agree with yourself:
http://www.mbstevens.com/hume/index.html#ideafact

> ............
> By the way - because this would really be getting too far off the OP's
> original question and I am a firm believer in sticking to topic - this is
> partly why God does not exist ...


What?
Your wetware is missing the slavery-circuit?

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2005
> From: mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> dorayme wrote:
>>> From: mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>
>>> Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
>>> _is_. Just not in a physical sense.
>>>

>>
>>
>> I don't think existence has different senses. If a and b exist, then they
>> exist in exactly the same sense.

>
> Some have given up arguing about 'existence' altogether because the word
> has been beaten to death during the last 200 years. If you look back
> through the thread you'll notice I never used it once. I was using
> "is". That was more than semantic sugaring -- it is a word less closely
> tied to ontology/metaphysics. But I probably should have said
> "it just doesn't have any physicality" instead of "is... Just not in a
> physical sense."
>

You have done no wrong. I don't think anything is changed by avoiding the
word "existence". Very similar problems come up whatever words are used. I
don't really object to your saying "... not in a physical sense". It just
seemed a convenient moment to make a speech.

>> It is tempting to suppose that a cup of
>> coffee can exist in a physical sense whereas a ghost or god or number or
>> class can exist in a non-physical sense, but this is not so. Things either
>> exists or they don't.

>
> You're definitely leaning toward Quine's camp.
> "To be is to be the value of a bound variable."
> These waters are too muddy to be thrashed out here.
> But have a look at the old analytic/synthetic distinction
> just to be sure you agree with yourself:
> http://www.mbstevens.com/hume/index.html#ideafact
>

I have always had this condition of agreeing with myself. But I am
interested in anything that might shake me out of it. I will take a peek at
your site ...

>> By the way - because this would really be getting too far off the OP's
>> original question and I am a firm believer in sticking to topic - this is
>> partly why God does not exist ...

>
> What?
> Your wetware is missing the slavery-circuit?
>


>

Well, I did go a little far here! There is a particularly Catholic argument
for the existence of god that depends on treating existence as a property or
quality. It is perhaps one of the strongest of the ancient arguments
unassailable by scientific advances. But it stumbles badly on critical
analysis of the idea of what it is for something to be. Forget about this
particular aspect. I withdraw it. I will ask a neurosurgeon friend about my
circuitry, see if anything can be done ...

dorayme





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM
confused - html validates, css validates but validate css from the html causes errors Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record HTML 6 11-15-2004 12:59 PM
Set CSS property equal to another CSS property? Noozer HTML 10 10-13-2004 09:20 PM
Is there a way to set the a CSS property to be explicitly the same as another CSS property? Joshua Beall HTML 1 12-10-2003 07:21 PM
print.css and screen.css tom watson HTML 1 09-09-2003 02:48 PM



Advertisments