Re: __bshr vs __bshl

[Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>]

2018-04-10 9:43 GMT+02:00 Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com>:

>> Of course you can't do everything, but you can do everything you can
>> do with a finite computer with a finite Turing Machine. If an
>> algorithm can't be run on a finite Turing Machine, it can't be run on
>> a finite computer. But the Turing Machine would be ridiculously huge
>> and unusably slow (regardless of finite or infinite), which is why the
>> next part comes into the picture.
>
> I know all of this. I think it should have been obvious from what I've
> been writing. What I was trying to point is that if we start talking
> about math things, like turing machines and the like, we should be
> very precise in what we write, as minor omissions totally change the
> subject in this kind of stuff.

We know your views on precise terminology :-)

Let me recap the thread.

1. OP asks why __bshr and __bshl both exist.
2. Good answer that metamethods << and >> need not mean shift anymore.
3. Off-topic digressions to the effect that you can do all of __bor,
__band, __bxor and __bnot with just __bnand or with just __bnor.
4. Since the thread had already strayed off into logicians'
minimalism, I threw in the Turing machine red herring.
5. The big fish are fighting about it :-)

Sorry, it was naughty of me.

Dirk