M
mark | r
ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of ID's
in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
Mark
in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
Mark
mark said:ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of ID's
in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
mark | r said:ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of ID's
in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
mark said:ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of
ID's in a CSS page
From: "mark | r said:ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of ID's
in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
Mark
ive been told by a colleague that you can only have a finite number of
ID's in a CSS page
anyone got any information on this?
Mark
Time to re-impliment the CSS parser to use streams?Toby said:mark | r wrote:
Well, it's impossible to have an infinite amount, as you would run out of
disk space. Thus you must have a finite amount, ..........
mbstevens said:Time to re-impliment the CSS parser to use streams?
Leif said:An arbitrary number can be used with streams, but an infinite number can
not be used. You may be able to use 10**googolplex IDs, but that's still
finite.
mbstevens said:Integers are known to be infinite because we understand how any
arbetrary integer can be generated from the previous one.
We also understand how to do this with members of streams, as streams
are theoretically concieved. Time, computer resources, and doggedness
have nothing to do with it.
mbstevens said:Or, more precisely, a stream is just a sequence of data objects.
We understand how to _process_ a particular data object based on
some of the previous data objects.
Leif said:Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
will always contain a finite number.
Leif said:Right, but a stream--even one which will always have the potential to
generate infinitely more data objects--will never reach a point where it
has already generated an infinite number of objects. Therefor, while a
document may have the potential to contain an infinite number of IDs, it
will always contain a finite number.
rf said:Leif K-Brooks wrote:
Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?
(This is not intended to be a dig at you, most people do not understand the
full mathemical concept of infinity. At University (when I was there, at
least) its treatment was defered till at least the 200 level, and the
higher level at that. I did a full semester unit on "transfinite
arithmetic". Definitely not maths 101)
The stream *will* contain an infinite number of objects. After infinite time
has elapsed.
rf said:We don't even need to think of it temporally. For instance, there _are_
infinite integers. If we specify a sequence derived from the sequence
of integers, then we have simply specified the sequence. It might be
either denumerable or uncountable, as shown by Cantor's diagonal
argument, but it still is, and it is infinite.
rf said:mbstevens wrote:
rf wrote:
Are you talking about the physical object (the "stream") or our use of it
("streaming" it)?
However the *verb* stream, as in "streaming the CSS file", does introduces
time. That is what streaming means, stream (and play) it in real time.
Your
words: "re-implement the CSS parser to use streams" imply the time domain.
mbstevens said:Where anything mathmatically, logically,
or set theoreticaly infinite is concerned, we can
specify. Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
_is_. Just not in a physical sense.
From: mbstevens said:Once specified clearly, the thing we specified
_is_. Just not in a physical sense.
dorayme said:I don't think existence has different senses. If a and b exist, then they
exist in exactly the same sense.
It is tempting to suppose that a cup of
coffee can exist in a physical sense whereas a ghost or god or number or
class can exist in a non-physical sense, but this is not so. Things either
exists or they don't.
............
By the way - because this would really be getting too far off the OP's
original question and I am a firm believer in sticking to topic - this is
partly why God does not exist ...
You have done no wrong. I don't think anything is changed by avoiding theFrom: mbstevens said:Some have given up arguing about 'existence' altogether because the word
has been beaten to death during the last 200 years. If you look back
through the thread you'll notice I never used it once. I was using
"is". That was more than semantic sugaring -- it is a word less closely
tied to ontology/metaphysics. But I probably should have said
"it just doesn't have any physicality" instead of "is... Just not in a
physical sense."
I have always had this condition of agreeing with myself. But I amYou're definitely leaning toward Quine's camp.
"To be is to be the value of a bound variable."
These waters are too muddy to be thrashed out here.
But have a look at the old analytic/synthetic distinction
just to be sure you agree with yourself:
http://www.mbstevens.com/hume/index.html#ideafact
Well, I did go a little far here! There is a particularly Catholic argumentWhat?
Your wetware is missing the slavery-circuit?
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.