Supreme Maharishi Bhumi 1000:
bernd the broter:
Supreme Maharishi Bhumi 1000:
Example 2. Programming languages go from low-level, low abstraction to high level, high abstraction languages. Ultimately they are all just binary sequences.
Hm. No.
Apparently Metta-practice doesn't cure
I probably ought to use separate accounts for practice and discussion.
My current way just makes everyone reply "It seems that Metta won't remove bad character trait X which must be responsible for this post."
passive-aggresive nitpicking...
This isn't nitpicking.
Your example is simply wrong.
To agree with this observation, we don't even need to cite that
The devil is in the details.
Programming languages are languages with a strict syntax, which therefore can be used to define statements intended for automatic processing.
The fact that it is almost always possible to translate programs written in a certain programming language into assembler (which is, for technical reasons, stored in the form of a binary sequence) does not say much about the programming language itself; any information (as long as it's not too much information. See your favourite introductory course on information theory.) can be stored as a finite binary sequence, so what?
I could as well state that "Ultimately, all programming languages are just partial functions and fix point iterations". This would still be nonsense, though (: