The abstract | The Coffeehouse

bikini
(bloop)

In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Absolutely.

Manip

Yes.

1+1=2

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Tornados.

CannotResolveSymbol
Microsoft: Who do you want to execute today?

Of course. You do it everday. Otherwise you'd lose your sanity.

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

It's how you talk to your date...

bikini
(bloop)

bikini wrote:
In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

How about the reverse?

Manip

bikini wrote:

bikini wrote: In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

How about the reverse?

Uhh no... Because low level, by its nature contains on abstraction...

Zaki

bikini wrote:
In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

Hi.

Huh... tough question, because the definitions are rather fuzzy. But isn't it the high level's nature to abstract away what's in the low level?

1+1=2, but 2 is still low level. Now if I say 1+1 = Number, then most certainly I just abstracted away the nuance that the Specific number is 2. On the other hand, Number most definitely has certain qualities that 2 possesses, save the individual characteristics of the Specific 2.

Now, if the question is about programming languages and let's call ASM a low level and (exempli gratia) C# a high-level, then the question is slightly different and less philosophical. C# most definitely consists of a bunch of ASM instructions, however you cannot specify (or would have a rather hard time) individual instructions - unless there is a way built in, but then it's not that high of a level.

About the reverse. Can the nature of high-level be presented at a low level? I presume it can, because in the end, the high level is just an abstraction of the lower levels. As the Numbers high level set contains many individual numbers that in sum add up to define the rules for the higher level. Like any matter would just be a number of atoms, then electrons and protons and neutrons, which are of quarks et cetera, and you can also say that's an apple (or Platonic style, the idea of an apple Smiley

).

Just the same, no matter how clever your C# program is, in the end, somebody with enough talent (and most importantly time) can write the same code in ASM.

So for the original question, I vote No, for the reversed question, I vote Yes. Please note 'vote' Smiley

It would take either a) many many more sleepless nights to get twisted up in the specifics of the question or b) a lot more alcohol in my veins.

mot256
Beyond ASM... OOP

bikini wrote:
In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

Yes...

? >
Diodes >
Machine Language >
ASM >
Basic, Pascal, C, C++, etc. (OOP…) >
DSL

Karim
Trapped in a world he never made!

bikini wrote:
In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

If by "nature," you mean, "true nature," the answer is no. Abstraction always removes data.

The question is whether you needed the data you removed (abstracted away). In some cases you can remove data, and the essential nature remains the same. That's not always the case, though.

There is an old math joke that goes like this:

A physicist, an engineer, and a psychologist are called in as consultants to a dairy farm whose production has been below par. Each is given time to inspect the details of the operation before making a report.

The first to be called is the engineer, who states: “The size of the stalls for the cattle should be decreased. Efficiency could be improved if the cows were more closely packed, with a net allotment of 275 cubic feet per cow. Also, the diameter of the milking tubes should be increased by 4 percent to allow for a greater average flow rate during the milking periods”.

The next to report is the psychologist, who proposes: “The inside of the barn should be painted green. This is a more mellow color than brown and should help induce greater milk flow. Also, more trees should be planted in the fields to add diversity to the scenery for the cattle during grazing, to reduce boredom”.

Finally, the physicist is called upon. He asks for a blackboard and then draws a circle. He begins: “Assume the cow is a sphere....”

The point of the joke is that the physicist abstracts to the point of losing important information. The cow-as-sphere abstraction works fine for certain physics problems -- if you are launching a cow from a catapult, or dropping a cow from an airplane, the abstraction may work "well enough." But it loses information about the true nature of cows that would help him solve the problem (how to make the cows more contented so that they produce more milk).

Can the essential nature of a low level be represented at a high level? Sometimes. Sometimes, for expediency's sake, to make the problem easier to solve, the cow is a sphere.

Can the true nature of a low level be represented at a high level? No.

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Let's put an abstract method in our abstract base business object class; called "Save()".

Isn't this a low-level that would then be surfaced at a higher-level when it is implemented in derived classes?

(Yes.)

Reverse. You have no way to swim in that direction, afaik. Generalities would have to suffice; which would be low-level imho.

I truly thought this was a tongue-in-cheek thread; perhaps I was too abstract in my approach...

Perplexed

Zaki

JohnAskew wrote:
Let's put an abstract method in our abstract base business object class; called "Save()".

Isn't this a low-level that would then be surfaced at a higher-level when it is implemented in derived classes?

I have the impression, that a number of people mix high-level with low-level.

High-level: that is with a higher level of abstraction, while low-level: with a lower level of abstraction. So what exactly is abstraction I suppose is the question. I found this:

Google wrote:

- a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance; "he loved her only in the abstract--not in person"
- An intensional representation of a class, typically a description. Abstractions always summarize, that is, they emphasize some properties and leave out other properties. Omitted properties may be particular to members of the class but are not salient to defining the class.

As with the example: Save () without implementation is the high level and thus everyone agrees, that high level cannot fully represent the TRUE nature of low level (as per the original question) because it is the nature of abstraction to take away some information (eg. the implementation details). Abstract is always higher level. As - in old times - artists would sometimes get high to produce abstract art.

Now, someone please answer my twist:

"In what way(s) does this question and its answer help us?" Smiley

Karim
Trapped in a world he never made!

[author puts on philosopher hat]

Now I have to contradict myself (slightly) and say that it is possible, in at least one case, for the true nature of a low level to be represented at a high level:

The fractal.

bikini wrote:

How about the reverse?

Holograms are quasi-fractal, in that if you take a large hologram and break it, each piece contains an image of the whole. In that sense, I suppose a piece of a hologram could be considered "high level" (because the other pieces have been "abstracted away").

But I suppose you could just as easily consider a piece of a larger hologram to be "low level," because the individual pieces have a greater complexity than one large, single hologram. In that sense, "abstracting" means "removing the data that causes an appearance of separate pieces." Once you have done that, you have effectively done the "reverse," i.e. shown that the nature of a high level (whole hologram) is presented at the nature of a low level (individual piece).

Oh. I guess the reverse works with fractals too.

I believe it was the philosopher and sage Whitney Houston the Elder who first posited the holographic nature of women when she sang, "I'm every woman / it's all in me...." thus suggesting that the true nature of a low level ("every woman") can be presented at a high level or class instance ("me").

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Zaki wrote:

JohnAskew wrote: Let's put an abstract method in our abstract base business object class; called "Save()".

Isn't this a low-level that would then be surfaced at a higher-level when it is implemented in derived classes?

I have the impression, that a number of people mix high-level with low-level.

A coworker I have always refers to uploads from server to client and downloads from client to server. I've always said upload from client to server and download from server to client. Having to make the translation with such frequency has likely contributed to my presbyopia.

Zaki wrote:
]
High-level: that is with a higher level of abstraction, while low-level: with a lower level of abstraction. So what exactly is abstraction I suppose is the question. I found this:

Google wrote:
- a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance; "he loved her only in the abstract--not in person"
- An intensional representation of a class, typically a description. Abstractions always summarize, that is, they emphasize some properties and leave out other properties. Omitted properties may be particular to members of the class but are not salient to defining the class.

As with the example: Save () without implementation is the high level and thus everyone agrees, that high level cannot fully represent the TRUE nature of low level (as per the original question) because it is the nature of abstraction to take away some information (eg. the implementation details). Abstract is always higher level. As - in old times - artists would sometimes get high to produce abstract art.

Now, someone please answer my twist:

"In what way(s) does this question and its answer help us?"

The result of abstraction is a wider range of possibilities, though it created from "taking away some information".

It helps to know that as gravity pulls us down, it helps us stand up.

It isn't correct to expect the high level to know that 'removed information' of the low level. It is the isolation of the upper level to not know the embrace of reality level. They do represent, but they can never know.

JohnAskew
9 girl in pink sweater

Karim wrote:
[author puts on philosopher hat]

Now I have to contradict myself (slightly) and say that it is possible, in at least one case, for the true nature of a low level to be represented at a high level:

The fractal.

bikini wrote:
How about the reverse?

Holograms are quasi-fractal, in that if you take a large hologram and break it, each piece contains an image of the whole. In that sense, I suppose a piece of a hologram could be considered "high level" (because the other pieces have been "abstracted away").

But I suppose you could just as easily consider a piece of a larger hologram to be "low level," because the individual pieces have a greater complexity than one large, single hologram. In that sense, "abstracting" means "removing the data that causes an appearance of separate pieces." Once you have done that, you have effectively done the "reverse," i.e. shown that the nature of a high level (whole hologram) is presented at the nature of a low level (individual piece).

Oh. I guess the reverse works with fractals too.

I've never thought of defining an abstract base class through removing data, I look for attributes that can be common to all derivatives.

A half empty or half full -glass perspective thing... ?

Fractals can be scarey. Like the Blob or some invasive alien fungus.
Tongue Out

bikini
(bloop)

Karim wrote:
I believe it was the philosopher and sage Whitney Houston the Elder who first posited the holographic nature of women when she sang, "I'm every woman / it's all in me...." thus suggesting that the true nature of a low level ("every woman") can be presented at a high level or class instance ("me").

Or reflecting upon the nature of seeing eye to eye.

Draper

Nature, by its definition is an abstraction of the low level. While it is nature to flinch when struck with a large object, the low level would be the action of shrugging the shoulders, closing the eyes, but it can be described as "flinching" and presented as such.

Definition 7 of Nature, the one I find most pertinent for the subject matter at hand as returned from Dictionary.com :
The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing.

While low level concepts provide for certain challenges for authors to present at a high level, the key goal is to capture the nature of what the concepts are encompassed by and relate that from a high level view.

This question, as presented, is a high level question. I believe this discussion was waning from the actual question: Can the nature of the low level be presented at the high level. Not can the low level be presented at the high level, which is what it seems to be the discussion is.

[6]

billh
call -141

bikini wrote:
In your view, can the nature of a low level be presented at a high level?

To what end? And, are you talking about a teaching situation (such as trying to explain how a nuclear explosion works with a bunch of ping pong balls and a table full of mousetraps) or a programming situation (such as trying to represent assembly language through a different construct)?

You used the word "presented"...which makes me think of a teaching situation. When presenting a low level topic, you generally do have to start at a high level and then drill down to the finer details.

This, of course, depends upon the learning style of all participants involved...something often ignored or overlooked by many teachers.

Now, about impressionism and painting...

Wil
Wil

A photograph is a 2-D representation of a 3-D object. Is information lost in the process of projecting from space to a plane? Yes. Does it matter? Sometimes yes, often no. If valuable information is being lost, your best bet is to move the camera to a different location so that the projection now shows the view from a different angle, wherein the full spatial information is less ambiguous (e.g., if you're trying to photograph what's happening on a playing field and a fat guy is standing in the way, move so that you can see around him to get the information you seek.) So in the case of the abstract, you have to be careful what you include and what you leave out. (D'uh!)

That's the low-level answer. The high-level answer that abstracts all that blither to a succinct version is: it depends.

bikini
(bloop)

billh wrote:
To what end?

The abstract.