[MD] Is the MOQ static, or a static pattern?

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Arlo,
I was looking for this kind of stuff. (Citing Wikipedia)

"A recursive definition of a function defines values of the functions 
for some inputs in terms of the values of the same function for other 
inputs. For example, the factorial 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial> function /n/! is defined by the 
rules

    0! = 1.
    (/n/+1)! = (/n/+1)·/n/!."


I did not ask you to present a definition in order to challenge your 
views, but to figure out what you're trying to say. But you get somehow 
wound up when I'm trying to do that, as if it was overwhelming that I 
even asked whether your view of recursion is formal or informal. Why? It 
was just a question. I already understand both kinds of recursion, but 
if you've read my posts, you know I'm not very interested of discussing 
informal recursion.

Arlo, you and the MOQ community are not victims of mathematics and 
people with a good grasp of dialectics. There's no need to become 
defensive before a challenge has been presented.

Tuukka



21.5.2012 2:25, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
> Arlo,
>
>> [Arlo]
>> Thanks Ant, its increasingly clear to me that Tuukka is really 
>> struggling with recursion. Hey claims to understand it, claims to 
>> have read Hofstadter, but in the next sentence falls right back into 
>> the very SOM trap Hofstadter (and Pirsig) warn against - of trying to 
>> 'formally define' his way past it. In any event, he's talking about 
>> his 12 level MOQ and not Pirsig, so...
>
> Tuukka:
> But I haven't presented a formal definition of recursion. I asked you 
> to present one. I have never developed something like that myself, nor 
> do I intend to.
>
> Tuukka
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>