Conceptual Truth can be understood as math

[Eodnhoj7]

If coding standards prevent infinite loops then infinite loops will
not occur in any programs conforming to these programming standards.

Coding standards do prevent infinite loops. I already told you that.
Total functional programming

Coding standards are also a form of Linguistic prescription.

Since you ignored that part, you are disingenuous.

Since I didn't ignore it, you are a liar.

I asked you this question 9 days ago.

It seems to me that in your pursuit for disambiguation, you are really after a formal system with normalisation.

A lambda calculus system with the normalisation property can be viewed as a programming language with the property that every program terminates. Although this is a very useful property, it has a drawback: a programming language with the normalisation property cannot be Turing complete.

So back to the question of giving up expressive power. If you are asking me to give up Turing completeness, what are you offering in return?

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Any repetition of a variable as an extension of that hierarchy is recursive, hence cyclical.

X as the apex of a localized hierarchy may contain y, y1, y2, etc. but because all y's are subcategories of x they effectively are variations of x. This is not different than all numbers being variations of a recursive 1, all evens a variation of a recursive 2, triads as 3, etc.

Hierarchies are strings of inherent cycles with the last remaining element of that hierarchy necessitating a loop back to the origin.

1 recursively existing to infinity effectively necessitates infinity looping back as 1 infinity with the loop expanding.

There is no acyclicalicity, at best an assymetric progressive string that effectively acts dually as an assymetric loop of specific variables of an assumed axis of the hiereirrchal apes that necessitates the apex as not only ever present but apex as an inherent middle.

Any balanced system is assymetric by nature due to the apex not being at a relative top but rather a center. Linear Hierarchies, up and down, are relativistic and contradictory.

[Eodnhoj7]

X is a type of Y.
X does not have self reference.
Y has self-reference.

Therefore X has self-reference?

We are talking about your coding standard.

Does your coding standard allow self-reference. Yes? No? Maybe? Sometimes?

If Y is allowed to have self-reference, why is X not allowed to have self-reference?

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

Then the last variable seals off the string and makes it an assumption that is not completely defined except as a point of inversion for one string to go to another...effectively it means nothing in and of itself.

[PeteOlcott]

Coding standards do prevent infinite loops. I already told you that.
Total functional programming

Coding standards are also a form of Linguistic prescription.


Since I didn't ignore it, you are a liar.

I asked you this question 9 days ago.

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Any repetition of a variable as an extension of that hierarchy is recursive, hence cyclical.

This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

[Eodnhoj7]

Once structured programming eliminated spaghetti code we had to give up spaghetti code programming
yet what remained was sufficiently expressive to express anything that need be expressed.

Likewise when representing the set of all conceptual knowledge in a directed acyclic graph.

Any repetition of a variable as an extension of that hierarchy is recursive, hence cyclical.

This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

False, they are diverging cycles within cycles:

A -> B=(A,A) and C= AAA

B-> D=(B,B) and F= (BBBB)

C-> E = (C,C) and G = (CCC)

Etc.

[PeteOlcott]

Any repetition of a variable as an extension of that hierarchy is recursive, hence cyclical.

This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

False, they are diverging cycles within cycles:

A -> B=(A,A) and C= AAA

B-> D=(B,B) and F= (BBBB)

C-> E = (C,C) and G = (CCC)

Etc.

None of that is BNF.

[Skepdick]

The coding standard rejects any code that results in an evaluation
sequence that cannot be expressed as a directed acyclic graph.

https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... lic_term/1

So you reject recursion!

No. I never said that. BNF stipulates recursion.

Pete, what is the process of turning a recursive function into a graph.

How do you parse a recursion without evaluating it?

[Skepdick]

This always parses a PARSE TREE: (Trees never have cycles)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

How do you generate the parse tree from a recursive function?
How deep is the parse tree of a recursive function?

[PeteOlcott]

So you reject recursion!

No. I never said that. BNF stipulates recursion.

Pete, what is the process of turning a recursive function into a graph.

How do you parse a recursion without evaluating it?

The set of all conceptual knowledge requires a recursive specification such as BNF
it does not seem to require recursive functions.

[Skepdick]

The set of all conceptual knowledge requires a recursive specification such as BNF
it does not seem to require recursive functions.

Ackermann functions are conceptual knowledge.

How do you specify one without recursion?
How do you generate its parse tree?

[PeteOlcott]

The set of all conceptual knowledge requires a recursive specification such as BNF
it does not seem to require recursive functions.

Ackermann functions are conceptual knowledge.

How do you specify one without recursion?
How do you generate its parse tree?

Its C++ course code is easily specified without cycles.
Its seems that the recursive factorial function is a much simpler equivalent example.

[Skepdick]

Its C++ course code is easily specified without cycles.
Its seems that the recursive factorial function is a much simpler equivalent example.

Factorial is primitive. It is not equivalent.

Go ahead and re-write this function without cycles.

[Skepdick]

For the body of all knowledge that can be verified as completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words:
True(x) = Provable(x)
False(x) = Provable(~x)
(....)
Give me one exception to the rule and I will show you where you erred.

Here is your Unicorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2% ... on_theorem

[PeteOlcott]

Its C++ course code is easily specified without cycles.
Its seems that the recursive factorial function is a much simpler equivalent example.

Factorial is primitive. It is not equivalent.

Go ahead and re-write this function without cycles.

It is already written without cycles, the entire function
would be parsed into an acyclic parse tree.

[PeteOlcott]

For the body of all knowledge that can be verified as completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words:
True(x) = Provable(x)
False(x) = Provable(~x)
(....)
Give me one exception to the rule and I will show you where you erred.

Here is your Unicorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2% ... on_theorem

You left out too much relevant context with your (....)

[Skepdick]

For the body of all knowledge that can be verified as completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of its words:
True(x) = Provable(x)
False(x) = Provable(~x)
(....)
Give me one exception to the rule and I will show you where you erred.

Here is your Unicorn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2% ... on_theorem

You left out too much relevant context with your (....)

Liar. I gave you an example where True(x) != Provable(x)