4 ms·

For context I'm talking about function application a la lambda calculus. In this case 'function application' is something that's done to discrete symbols. Circu

by mxkopy 4y ago

For context I'm talking about function application a la lambda calculus. In this case 'function application' is something that's done to discrete symbols. Circuits aren't a discrete system however so there's no mapping. Functions are a good way to describe things but it's not what they are fundamentally. OP also made a good point about how the inputs can change with the outputs but it's not recursive. It's literally the same process as water flowing more slowly into a lake as the lake gets more full. My intuition with circuits is that you'll end up doing something like that if you try to feed the output to the input without an intermediary store like a delay line or capacitor. And even then it's not recursive unless the algorithm you're running is tail optimized.

dahart 4y ago
> Circuits aren’t a discrete system however so there’s no mapping. You need to qualify that as analog circuits. And they do accept a discrete mapping, you’re just asserting without trying it. > Functions are a good way to describe things but it’s not what they are fundamentally. Yes it is. It is both how and why we build circuits; to apply the function’s effect, to pass it to the next function to build a larger function. Why are you suddenly ruling out capacitors and delay lines? Those are analog circuitry, and they are absolutely standard building blocks. > it’s not recursive unless the algorithm you’re running is tail optimized. What’s wrong with tail optimized? That is still recursive, and it’s still feedback. You’re moving the goal posts. Above you and OP stated feedback (tail-recursion) was not a thing in analog circuits. That’s not true.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  > You’re moving the goal posts. To my credit the goalposts were never defined. > You need to qualify that as analog circuits. No, I don't. The context always has been analog circuits. OP makes the distinction here > Analog electronics is different from digital computation because it's not about inputs and outputs, cause and effect in the same manner. Good faith needs to be established before I continue, sorry
  - dahart 4y ago
    Oh sorry I was referring to the goal posts you defined with “There’s no function application in circuitry”, and repeating the OP’s claim that what looks like feedback actually isn’t feedback because circuits are in a static electric balance (which is not generally true for analog circuits). Okay, I accept that the context was analog circuits, that’s fair, and I apologize for accidentally ticking you off with that note. I didn’t mean to, and I felt like a broad generalization could use the qualification, and all it needs is a single word. But I don’t see how that side-comment amounts to bad faith about anything, nor do I agree with that assessment. I’m arguing directly and with evidence against the claims you made, not with hyperbole, not with ad-hominem, but with facts: analog circuits with feedback are not just something that exists, they are widespread and common. Power conditioners, frequency filters, analog guitar delay pedals, all of these things are real-world counter-examples to the way OP framed it, and the way you defended that claim.
    - mxkopy 4y ago
      I'll be honest I wasn't meaning to defend OP's claim to the death or anything. I was mostly tracking their argument. I too am somewhat confused as to why just feeding outputs to inputs isn't recursive. I think honestly this is most people's intuition and the burden of proof (and therefore the fun) lies on stating the opposite i.e. it's not recursive. I say this is bad faith arguing because you're very clearly trying to get me to say that circuits can be recursive. If you were arguing in good faith you'd be OK with "moving goalposts", as long as new ones were agreeably defined. In this case the goalposts seem to be: analog circuits, with no delay wires, capacitors what have you. Basically circuits with no state. In this case the reasoning basically boils down to: you have to have at least a stack to do recursion. Stack is state. Now obviously the world of circuits is much bigger than this and in fact includes all stacks by the Computers Are Circuits theorem you provided. But using that is too easy, there's no fun. Good faith arguing is for fun, bad faith arguing is for points
      - dahart 4y ago
        Oh hi, you’re still here! > I say this is bad faith arguing because you’re very clearly trying to get me to say that circuits can be recursive. What are you talking about? Yes I am, in fact, arguing that analog circuits can be recursive, contrary to the claim OP made and you appeared to defend for multiple comments in a row. It’s not called bad faith when I question and contradict your claim, it’s called a discussion, argument, or debate. If you didn’t mean to defend it to the death, that begs the question of why you’re choosing to escalate this conversation into ad-hominem territory. If you’re confused as to why analog circuit feedback is recursive, that begs the question why you said “OP also made a good point about how the inputs can change with the outputs but it's not recursive.” > If you were arguing in good faith you’d be OK with “moving goalposts” FWIW, that is not true, and sneaking in changes to your claim is not a particularly good faith move. Nor is accusing someone of bad faith when they point it out. It’s rather amusing that accusations of bad faith are rarely if ever made in good faith; they can be recursive too, just like analog circuits! You have made several broad generalizations about analog circuits and feedback that are not true, essentially claiming analog circuit feedback and recursion can’t exist, and then after that started qualifying it as if you weren’t talking about capacitors and tail recursion, which contradicts the earlier claim that circuits can’t be recursive. I don’t agree to your new goalposts, and I said so, they are not “agreeably defined”. > In this case the goalposts seem to be: analog circuits, with no delay wire, capacitors what have you. Basically circuits with no state. I don’t agree these are the goalposts, you’re arbitrarily excluding common analog components, and this is not what OP was claiming. If you exclude capacitors or any state, you’re manufacturing a meaningless point about a not very useful subset of analog circuits, and saying nothing about analog circuits in general. You never answered the question of why you’re choosing to arbitrarily exclude widely used and completely standard analog circuitry, nor why you didn’t state this before I started mentioning capacitors. > In this case the reasoning basically boils down to: you have to have at least a stack to do recursion. Stack is state. Not sure what you’re talking about here. Stack is a digital circuit concept, while analog circuits can and do have state. Like I said, analog circuits with feedback and recursion don’t just exist - they are widespread and common.

by mxkopy 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

> Circuits aren’t a discrete system however so there’s no mapping. You need to qualify that as analog circuits. And they do accept a discrete mapping, you’re just asserting without trying it. > Functions are a good way to describe things but it’s not what they are fundamentally. Yes it is. It is both how and why we build circuits; to apply the function’s effect, to pass it to the next function to build a larger function. Why are you suddenly ruling out capacitors and delay lines? Those are analog circuitry, and they are absolutely standard building blocks. > it’s not recursive unless the algorithm you’re running is tail optimized. What’s wrong with tail optimized? That is still recursive, and it’s still feedback. You’re moving the goal posts. Above you and OP stated feedback (tail-recursion) was not a thing in analog circuits. That’s not true.

mxkopy 4y ago
> You’re moving the goal posts. To my credit the goalposts were never defined. > You need to qualify that as analog circuits. No, I don't. The context always has been analog circuits. OP makes the distinction here > Analog electronics is different from digital computation because it's not about inputs and outputs, cause and effect in the same manner. Good faith needs to be established before I continue, sorry
- dahart 4y ago
  Oh sorry I was referring to the goal posts you defined with “There’s no function application in circuitry”, and repeating the OP’s claim that what looks like feedback actually isn’t feedback because circuits are in a static electric balance (which is not generally true for analog circuits). Okay, I accept that the context was analog circuits, that’s fair, and I apologize for accidentally ticking you off with that note. I didn’t mean to, and I felt like a broad generalization could use the qualification, and all it needs is a single word. But I don’t see how that side-comment amounts to bad faith about anything, nor do I agree with that assessment. I’m arguing directly and with evidence against the claims you made, not with hyperbole, not with ad-hominem, but with facts: analog circuits with feedback are not just something that exists, they are widespread and common. Power conditioners, frequency filters, analog guitar delay pedals, all of these things are real-world counter-examples to the way OP framed it, and the way you defended that claim.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    I'll be honest I wasn't meaning to defend OP's claim to the death or anything. I was mostly tracking their argument. I too am somewhat confused as to why just feeding outputs to inputs isn't recursive. I think honestly this is most people's intuition and the burden of proof (and therefore the fun) lies on stating the opposite i.e. it's not recursive. I say this is bad faith arguing because you're very clearly trying to get me to say that circuits can be recursive. If you were arguing in good faith you'd be OK with "moving goalposts", as long as new ones were agreeably defined. In this case the goalposts seem to be: analog circuits, with no delay wires, capacitors what have you. Basically circuits with no state. In this case the reasoning basically boils down to: you have to have at least a stack to do recursion. Stack is state. Now obviously the world of circuits is much bigger than this and in fact includes all stacks by the Computers Are Circuits theorem you provided. But using that is too easy, there's no fun. Good faith arguing is for fun, bad faith arguing is for points
    - dahart 4y ago
      Oh hi, you’re still here! > I say this is bad faith arguing because you’re very clearly trying to get me to say that circuits can be recursive. What are you talking about? Yes I am, in fact, arguing that analog circuits can be recursive, contrary to the claim OP made and you appeared to defend for multiple comments in a row. It’s not called bad faith when I question and contradict your claim, it’s called a discussion, argument, or debate. If you didn’t mean to defend it to the death, that begs the question of why you’re choosing to escalate this conversation into ad-hominem territory. If you’re confused as to why analog circuit feedback is recursive, that begs the question why you said “OP also made a good point about how the inputs can change with the outputs but it's not recursive.” > If you were arguing in good faith you’d be OK with “moving goalposts” FWIW, that is not true, and sneaking in changes to your claim is not a particularly good faith move. Nor is accusing someone of bad faith when they point it out. It’s rather amusing that accusations of bad faith are rarely if ever made in good faith; they can be recursive too, just like analog circuits! You have made several broad generalizations about analog circuits and feedback that are not true, essentially claiming analog circuit feedback and recursion can’t exist, and then after that started qualifying it as if you weren’t talking about capacitors and tail recursion, which contradicts the earlier claim that circuits can’t be recursive. I don’t agree to your new goalposts, and I said so, they are not “agreeably defined”. > In this case the goalposts seem to be: analog circuits, with no delay wire, capacitors what have you. Basically circuits with no state. I don’t agree these are the goalposts, you’re arbitrarily excluding common analog components, and this is not what OP was claiming. If you exclude capacitors or any state, you’re manufacturing a meaningless point about a not very useful subset of analog circuits, and saying nothing about analog circuits in general. You never answered the question of why you’re choosing to arbitrarily exclude widely used and completely standard analog circuitry, nor why you didn’t state this before I started mentioning capacitors. > In this case the reasoning basically boils down to: you have to have at least a stack to do recursion. Stack is state. Not sure what you’re talking about here. Stack is a digital circuit concept, while analog circuits can and do have state. Like I said, analog circuits with feedback and recursion don’t just exist - they are widespread and common.