Another problem!!

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96581#msg96581 date=1162077068]
And? They're still related so I can call infinite recursion and infinite loop if I damn well feel like it and I will still be right.

Which makes me right.

Warrior, you're pathetic sometimes.  It doesn't matter how you want to justify your incorrectness.  You're still wrong.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96581#msg96581 date=1162077068]
And? They're still related so I can call infinite recursion and infinite loop if I damn well feel like it and I will still be right.

Which makes me right.

Warrior, you're pathetic sometimes.  It doesn't matter how you want to justify your incorrectness.  You're still wrong.

I'm incorrect because you say I'm incorrect? You're not the one with the wikipedia articles proving you right however.

[iago]

Do you remember what you're arguing about?  Here's the original quote:

x86] link=topic=7608.msg94924#msg94924 date=1161040684]
If you're infinitely looping you're bound to access some restricted memory sooner or later.

We've determined that it's quite likely that that's not going to happen.  in fact, the only time it's going to happen is if you're processing an array, or something else uncommon.  So you're wrong. 


Even if infinite recursion could be called an infinite loop, you aren't accessing restricted memory, you're running out of stack space.  So wrong again. 

[Warrior]

Do you remember what you're arguing about?  Here's the original quote:

x86] link=topic=7608.msg94924#msg94924 date=1161040684]
If you're infinitely looping you're bound to access some restricted memory sooner or later.

We've determined that it's quite likely that that's not going to happen.  in fact, the only time it's going to happen is if you're processing an array, or something else uncommon.  So you're wrong. 


Even if infinite recursion could be called an infinite loop, you aren't accessing restricted memory, you're running out of stack space.  So wrong again. 

You're right on those counts, I was thinking of buffer overflows when I wrote that. Who cares, if he fixes his problem with his app then all the power to him, I'm not going to continue arguing over something so stupid.

I do however standby my point I made to on infinite recursions being a form of infinite loops.

Scoreboard:
-----------
iago: 2
warrior: 1
sidoh: -12

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96587#msg96587 date=1162078808]
I'm incorrect because you say I'm incorrect? You're not the one with the wikipedia articles proving you right however.

You're hopeless, Warrior.  Your inability to admit defeat is astounding.

I will make my analogy (that you seemed to completely look over, by the way) more understandable for you.

And Rolle's Theorem is a special case of the Mean Value Theorem.  That doesn't make them the same thing.  Just because two things are related doesn't mean they're completely synonymous.

Rolle's Theorem states: if is continuous on a closed interval and differentinable on the open interval and , then there is some number in the open interval such that .

The Mean Value Theorem states: if is continuous on a closed interval and differentiable on the open interval and then there exists some value such that

As you should be able to see, Rolle's theorem is merely a special case of the MVT.  Does that make them equivilant?  Identical?  No, not at all.  Just because something is a special case of some other thing does not make them the same thing.  When someone tells you to solve a problem through recursion, you solve it through recursion, not looping.  They're two separate things, even though they represent comparable concepts.

It doesn't matter if recursions are a form of infinite loops (which, by the way, none of us have denied.  You haven't made a point.  You've simply pointed out something that all of us already know).  As I surely hope you know, a loop in programming has a far less abstract meaning than you're allowing it to have.  When someone tells you to write a loop, you better be typing the word "for" or "while."

[Warrior]

Blah Blah

Let's go over this:

Loop - Executing the same code over and over again
Infinite - Going on forever

Infinite Loop = Executing the same code over and over again forever.

Recursion - Executing the same code over and over again

Recursion = Loop

Infinite Recursion = Executing the same code over and over again forever.

Infinite Loop = Infinite Recursion

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96642#msg96642 date=1162131683]

Blah Blah

Let's go over this:

Loop - Executing the same code over and over again
Infinite - Going on forever

Infinite Loop = Executing the same code over and over again forever.

Recursion - Executing the same code over and over again

Recursion = Loop

Infinite Recursion = Executing the same code over and over again forever.

Infinite Loop = Infinite Recursion

Why are you so hard headed?  You can't win an argument if you don't even understand the other side of the argument, which you clearly don't.  This isn't a rap battle, Warrior.  Your usual argumentative tactics aren't going to work. :P

As I surely hope you know, a loop in programming has a far less abstract meaning than you're allowing it to have.  When someone tells you to write a loop, you better be typing the word "for" or "while."

Your "proof" abstracts the meaning of recursion and looping, which is exactly what I told you why you're wrong. :P

[Warrior]

I know, I'm being an asshole because it's fun.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96646#msg96646 date=1162135532]
I know, I'm being an asshole because it's fun.

I don't buy it. :P

[iago]

Warrior's tactic in this argument (and others) is to change the definition of the problem until it matches what he's arguing. 

This argument wasn't about whether or not infinite recursion is an infinite loop, it's about whether or not an infinite loop corrupts the stack. 

So you lose, gg.

[AntiVirus]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96642#msg96642 date=1162131683]

Blah Blah

LMFAO!!  That's funny.

[Warrior]

Warrior's tactic in this argument (and others) is to change the definition of the problem until it matches what he's arguing. 

This argument wasn't about whether or not infinite recursion is an infinite loop, it's about whether or not an infinite loop corrupts the stack. 

So you lose, gg.

What are you talking about..it does. Since we established that Infinite Loops = Infinite Recursion and infinite recursion do corrupt the stack.

I win.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96642#msg96642 date=1162131683]

Blah Blah

LMFAO!!  That's funny.

It's funny because he's an idiot.

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96662#msg96662 date=1162148813]

Warrior's tactic in this argument (and others) is to change the definition of the problem until it matches what he's arguing. 

This argument wasn't about whether or not infinite recursion is an infinite loop, it's about whether or not an infinite loop corrupts the stack. 

So you lose, gg.

What are you talking about..it does. Since we established that Infinite Loops = Infinite Recursion and infinite recursion do corrupt the stack.

I win.

No, you completely ignored everything we said so you could establish with yourself that you won.  You're an idiot.

[Warrior]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96642#msg96642 date=1162131683]

Blah Blah

LMFAO!!  That's funny.

It's funny because he's an idiot.

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96662#msg96662 date=1162148813]

Warrior's tactic in this argument (and others) is to change the definition of the problem until it matches what he's arguing. 

This argument wasn't about whether or not infinite recursion is an infinite loop, it's about whether or not an infinite loop corrupts the stack. 

So you lose, gg.

What are you talking about..it does. Since we established that Infinite Loops = Infinite Recursion and infinite recursion do corrupt the stack.

I win.

No, you completely ignored everything we said so you could establish with yourself that you won.  You're an idiot.

Funny you get mad over something on the internet, oh well. There is just no way I'm wrong, my proof is in the word itself. I'm fully aware when you say loop isn't just limited to recursion but the point is that, it includes recursion.

Ugh why am I even continuing this with you, I don't care. If you want to defy a definition to prove that you win then so be it, I'll just get on with my life.

You obsess too much over these things imho.

[Sidoh]

x86] link=topic=7608.msg96665#msg96665 date=1162150206]
Funny you get mad over something on the internet, oh well. There is just no way I'm wrong, my proof is in the word itself. I'm fully aware when you say loop isn't just limited to recursion but the point is that, it includes recursion.

Ugh why am I even continuing this with you, I don't care. If you want to defy a definition to prove that you win then so be it, I'll just get on with my life.

You obsess too much over these things imho.

It doesn't matter where I encounter them, idiots always piss me off.

I'm not defying the definition.  Like I said, you're abstracting the definition of a loop and using the abstracted definition to relate it to recursion.  I'm not saying that recursion isn't looping; however, it isn't a loop when you use the definition of the word "loop" in the context of a programming language.

In any case, you're still wrong. :P