3 ms·
That's not true. Consider the problem of detecting null pointer dereferences. Bucketing points into "null" and "not null" is lossless w.r.t. this problem domain
by UncleMeat 5y ago
That's not true. Consider the problem of detecting null pointer dereferences. Bucketing points into "null" and "not null" is lossless w.r.t. this problem domain. This can be very useful. When you stick Top and Bottom into the possible options is where you get lossy behavior. That can be useful too, but it isn't strictly necessary.
- ncmncm 5y agoBinning pointers into "null" and "not null" is, exactly, lossy.
- UncleMeat 5y agoWith respect to the domain it isn't.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe domain is, exactly, lossy.
- UncleMeat 5y agoIf you aren't considering an abstraction with respect to a specific domain then there every single abstraction is lossy, not just the useful ones. You cannot transform state in any way without loss because, given enough effort, all properties of state are observable. This makes "lossy" a worthless descriptor using your approach. Instead, I propose that we consider abstractions with respect to some problem domain. If you have states {null, notnull} then this is lossless but {null, notnull, top, bottom} is lossy.
- ncmncm 5y agoWhere you put your lossiness is a matter of choice and taste.