= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on The Featherless Biped - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (63)
You need to be a little more careful about such absolute statements. The definition of factorial(.) as
factorial(n) = n*factorial(n-1)
factorial(0) = 1
references itself and is valid.
Recursive definitions are possible, but they must still be founded on a base level that does not reference itself. Each other level can then be defined in a way that is not self-referential.
I believe usually it is also required that the number of steps (levels) to reach the non-recursive base should always be finite (e.g. recursion via a countable set).
Indeed. I'm just asking for a little precision, e.g., valid definitions cannot just reference themselves.
Some definitions which reference themselves plus something else are also invalid. :P
I presume that's why he said "e.g.", not "i.e."