🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bx73nu.DMy@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

|> Thus it seems reasonable to say that algorithms are *not* mathematical
|> objects (any more than, say, grammars are).  And this is particularly
|> true since algorithms do not form a domain of objects that are subject
|> to operations that are typically thought of as mathematical.  (Actually,
|> I have to confess that I don't what operations algorithms really
|> are subject to.  But normally in mathematics one deals with operations
|> under which the domain is closed.  So while algorithms *might* be
|> treated as mathematical objects -- for example, by constructing an
|> algebra of algorithms -- they usually (never?) *are* treated this way.)

It might be of some interest to anyone (?) reading this thread to look
at the thread on "Grammar Algebra" in comp.compilers.  This might serve
as an illustration of how something that initially is not thought of
(or treated as) a "mathematical object" may become one -- just embed
that type of object in the domain of a recognizably mathematical
theory.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm