Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[DragonLancer]

That's exactly what Thinking was talking about.  You're doing exactly what his math students do.  They would say the exact same thing:

 

"But Mr.Thinking, you don't understand.  I'm moving from the known to the unknown.  I know the answer, and I'm working backwards.  The thing at the start and the thing at the end are known.  You've given me the problem, and the answer, so I just need to decipher how they were arrived at.  It's like the Rosetta Stone.  It's not the answers that need to be found.  It's about how the answers are arrived at."

 

 

Continuing Thinking's analogy, here's the difference between your theory and the Rosetta Stone:

 

For years, scientists can't figure out what the "@" symbol means when used in ancient mathematical equations.  Then the Rosetta Stone presents the following data:

 

2@2 = 4

2@3 = 8

2@4 = 16

2@5 = 32

2@6 = 64

2@7 = 128

(pattern continues for another 50 lines)

 

Using that data, scientists are able to figure out how exponents work with a very high degree of certainty.

 

But 10 years before that discovery is made known, a man by the name of Henry Thompson is given a set of ancient math problems.  Using his dowsing rod, he produces the following chart:

 

5@6 = 356

2@5 = 71

4@6 = 190

5@2 = A cow

4@3 = 63

 

Henry's friends are amazed, because 4@3 is 64, and he deciphered it to mean 63, which is really really close.  What are the odds of that? 

 

Henry's friends are also amazed at how much more Henry knew than the scientists, because while conventional scientists have produced the boring and narrow minded theory that the "@" symbol worked as an exponent, Henry was able to discover that the "@" symbol actually contained many different mathematical operators. 

 

For example, it's possible that the originator of the equation could have wanted it to mean "add these two numbers together, then add 345".

 

It could also mean "multiply these two numbers together, then add 61".

 

Alternatively, it could mean "subtract the first number from the second number, then add 188"

 

And most interestingly, it could mean "an animal, found by subtracting the second number from the first, then counting to that letter in the English alphabet and finding the animal whose name starts with that number, and the name contains that many letters."

 

We might never agree on whether or not Henry was really onto something, but I think we would all agree that when it comes to the creativity and dedication of his followers, that Henry Thompson was a really lucky guy.

 

That's why continuing research is important, but this gives you no excuse not to look at and try to understand what you have admitted that you don't understand.  This isn't just something that ought to be ignored because potentially not all the answers are there.  I don't ignore Barney's theory just because he didn't see that ALL the characters were repurposed.  His theory was an important stepping stone to something.  My theory is an important stepping stone to a further understanding.  So, if I am to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you think that you can ignore what I say just because of the potential that I don't have all the answers yet, even though I may have some of them.  That's stupid.  And that's why I don't ignore Barney, and that's why I don't ignore William Schryver.  And that's why I don't ignore Moyer.  And that's why I don't ignore David Bokovoy.  They all contributed to something that I built on.  And I will contribute to a fuller understanding if I'm right about some things.  My theory will be a stepping stone if it is not the ultimate, correct understanding in all aspects.

Edited March 23, 2015 by DragonLancer

[cinepro]

And so, nobody did anything to change the document.  They left all the characters in the document in place.  And they re-interpreted each one in the place it was in the document.

 

Here's where your theory dies.

 

Obviously, J-Red is being theorized to be the Egyptian Mormon, right?  A pre-Christian, Bible-believing subversive living as a pagan priest in Egypt, preparing mummies according to the Egyptian rites.  Then at some point, God inspires him that for this specific set of mummies, he needs to...do nothing different.  Use the same papyrus to prepare them for their journey into the afterlife.  Use the same facsimiles.  But 2000 years from now, they'll be delivered to a Prophet who will look at them and be inspired to dictate The Book of Abraham based on... nothing being changed specifically?

 

You're basically adding an imaginative back story to the catalyst theory. 

 

You may as well theorize that J-Red was also six feet tall, walked with a slight limp on his left leg, and got gassy when he ate Egyptian bread.  He was shy, but not retiring, and had a good sense of humor (he especially like puns).  You can make up whatever you want, because again, there's no "there" there.

 

There are other people with the same faith you have in the veracity of The Book of Abraham, but they believe that there was no intentional "encoding", but instead it was inspiration to Joseph Smith directly that produced the text of the Book of Abraham (they believe that the text would be the same even if the mummies had never been found).  So you've got to show that there is something unique, identifying and specific in the papyri that make it different than other papyri, and conveys unique information in a way that isn't easily duplicated.

 

Otherwise, someone could take characters off the papyri and line them up in the margins of "The Cat in the Hat" and claim that the ancient Egyptians had "encoded" a Dr. Suess book in their ancient funerary texts.  Because ultimately, that's all you're doing.

[The Nehor]

That's why continuing research is important, but this gives you no excuse not to look at and try to understand what you have admitted that you don't understand.  This isn't just something that ought to be ignored because potentially not all the answers are there.  I don't ignore Barney's theory just because he didn't see that ALL the characters were repurposed.  His theory was an important stepping stone to something.  My theory is an important stepping stone to a further understanding.  So, if I am to take your argument to its logical conclusion, you think that you can ignore what I say just because of the potential that I don't have all the answers yet, even though I may have some of them.  That's stupid.  And that's why I don't ignore Barney, and that's why I don't ignore William Schryver.  And that's why I don't ignore Moyer.  And that's why I don't ignore David Bokovoy.  They all contributed to something that I built on.  And I will contribute to a fuller understanding if I'm right about some things.  My theory will be a stepping stone if it is not the ultimate, correct understanding in all aspects.

The reason no one understands it is that you are either unable or unwilling to elucidate what your theory actually is. Do not blame others for your inability to communicate.

[DragonLancer]

Here's where your theory dies.

 

Obviously, J-Red is being theorized to be the Egyptian Mormon, right?  A pre-Christian, Bible-believing subversive living as a pagan priest in Egypt, preparing mummies according to the Egyptian rites.  Then at some point, God inspires him that for this specific set of mummies, he needs to...do nothing different.  Use the same papyrus to prepare them for their journey into the afterlife.  Use the same facsimiles.  But 2000 years from now, they'll be delivered to a Prophet who will look at them and be inspired to dictate The Book of Abraham based on... nothing being changed specifically?

 

You're basically adding an imaginative back story to the catalyst theory. 

 

You may as well theorize that J-Red was also six feet tall, walked with a slight limp on his left leg, and got gassy when he ate Egyptian bread.  He was shy, but not retiring, and had a good sense of humor (he especially like puns).  You can make up whatever you want, because again, there's no "there" there.

 

There are other people with the same faith you have in the veracity of The Book of Abraham, but they believe that there was no intentional "encoding", but instead it was inspiration to Joseph Smith directly that produced the text of the Book of Abraham (they believe that the text would be the same even if the mummies had never been found).  So you've got to show that there is something unique, identifying and specific in the papyri that make it different than other papyri, and conveys unique information in a way that isn't easily duplicated.

 

Otherwise, someone could take characters off the papyri and line them up in the margins of "The Cat in the Hat" and claim that the ancient Egyptians had "encoded" a Dr. Suess book in their ancient funerary texts.  Because ultimately, that's all you're doing.

 

Nice straw man caricature of the theory.  Not an Egyptian Mormon.  An Egyptian with beliefs from many traditions, including Jewish patriarchs.  That is called a Syncretist.  Catholics aren't the people that wrote the Bible, but preserved it.  They were not authorized with priesthood authority.  There were many different groups in ancient times and in medieval times that preserved authentic scripture.  Egyptians that preserved texts were no different.  I love how you make stuff up and can't read a plainly constructed explanation.

 

It is Barney or Moyer that came up with the narrative for the Redactor.  So, if you want to find fault with the person that made up the story, then you should go talk to one of them.  The problem with your logic is that this so-called "story" fits the evidence.  It's not imaginative to have a hypothesis to explain evidence that is before you.  Coming up with hypotheses that explain things is an accepted practice in any discipline.  If anyone made it up, one of them did.  But your caricature is misrepresenting it entirely.  The narrative of how life came to exist on the earth as told us by scientists isn't just a stupid made up thing.  It's an evidence-based recital of a plausible scenario that explains how evidence is how it is.

 

This is nothing like the Catalyst theory at all.  Not only do you not understand this.  You don't understand the catalyst theory to be able to criticize this in misidentifying it.  If you really want to criticize something, you should correctly identify it and understand its arguments, not make up a caricature of it  in your own mind and pretend to refute something.   If anyone is guilty of a run-away imagination, it is someone that has to think up a caricature straw man as a red herring to refute, since he can't get his head around something that he thinks he doesn't agree with.

 

And not only have I told you so many times that this is not an encoding but an abstraction mechanism similar to a hash.  The using of symbols to represent things is reliant on things outside the document, so the mechanism is not "inside" the document but outside.  So it's silly that you say that there must be something special about this papyrus that I must demonstrate.  But you can't comprehend those words so you continue to make assertions about encodings.  You have misrepresented my theory so badly and now you continue to betray how off base your criticisms are.  As I told you before.  You have nothing constructive to add, so I once again invite you to leave the thread if you can't even understand what you pretend to refute.

 

This story would have been the same with any old Sensen Papyrus of this class.  There is nothing special about this Papyrus.  Nothing special must be demonstrated about this papyrus, because again, its about the way it was used, not something special about this copy.  I have said that multiple times too.  In the hands of Joseph Smith, any papyrus would do of this class.  Because it was copies of this class that were used this way.

Edited March 24, 2015 by DragonLancer

[cinepro]

Nice straw man caricature of the theory.  Not an Egyptian Mormon.  An Egyptian with beliefs from many traditions, including Jewish patriarchs.  That is called a Syncretist.  Catholics aren't the people that wrote the Bible, but preserved it.  They were not authorized with priesthood authority.  There were many different groups in ancient times and in medieval times that preserved authentic scripture.  Egyptians that preserved texts were no different.  I love how you make stuff up and can't read a plainly constructed explanation.

 

 

But it was still the Bible when Catholics preserved it.  If L. Ron Hubbard looked at the Hebrew Bible and "translated" it into Dianetics with the argument that a scribe from 1800 years ago was a Scientologist and "hashed" the text of Dianetics into the Bible (without obviously changing it), it would be an interesting theory but hardly a convincing one*.  Why would Catholic priests secretly preserve distinctly non-Catholic teachings in their sacred text?

 

As far as abstractions go, I'm a big fan of them.  I've even dabbled in abstraction myself.  Since you're a fellow abstractionist, I've put the rest of my post, which ran several thousand words and was quite detailed and refuted your entire theory point by point, into this single character:

 

♈

 

If you know as much about abstractions as you say you do, you should be able to reverse engineer it and you'll see how soundly you've been refuted.  If you're otherwise unable to, then it will confirm my suspicion that you've overreached and are way off base.

 

 

*It also wouldn't be the oddest thing Hubbard ever claimed, but I digress.

Edited March 24, 2015 by cinepro

[DragonLancer]

But it was still the Bible when Catholics preserved it.  If L. Ron Hubbard looked at the Hebrew Bible and "translated" it into Dianetics with the argument that a scribe from 1800 years ago was a scientologist and "hashed" the text of Dianetics into the Bible (without obviously changing it), it would be an interesting theory but hardly a convincing one*.  Why would Catholic priest secretly preserve distinctly non-Catholic teachings in their sacred text?

 

As far as abstractions go, I'm a big fan of them.  I've even dabbled in abstraction myself.  Since you're a fellow abstractionist, I've put the rest of my post, which ran several thousand words and was quite detailed and refuted your entire theory point by point, into this single character:

 

♈

 

If you know as much about abstractions as you say you do, you should be able to reverse engineer it and you'll see how soundly you've been refuted.  If you're otherwise unable to, then it will confirm my suspicion that you've overreached and are way off base.

 

 

*It also wouldn't be the oddest thing Hubbard ever claimed, but I digress.

 

Since characters that are abstractions require an outside assignment in a table of assignments, and you haven't provided one like I said you would have to, I guess you are expecting me to be a seer.  Sorry.  I don't qualify.  So, you have not refuted me.  You have proven me correct.

[The Nehor]

Since characters that are abstractions require an outside assignment in a table of assignments, and you haven't provided one like I said you would have to, I guess you are expecting me to be a seer. Sorry. I don't qualify. So, you have not refuted me. You have proven me correct.

He told you what it was. It was a refutation. You know what it means. Now you just need to explain how Cinepro abstracted it all from that one character. This is pretty much what you claimed to do with the facsimile.

Hint: You have to start on the right side squiggle first.

Edited March 24, 2015 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

Because then we can know that there was actual translation going on:  relaying ancient information into English.  If that is demonstrated, then Joseph Smith's primary claim is demonstrably correct.  With any other approach, you are left with Joseph Smith basically only "revealing" something.

First of all, I think that is really a completely semantic difference and I would be cautious of speaking about "only revealing" something. 

 

We have no plates for the BOM so that claim is not testable as "translation".  We know Joseph received the entire Book of Moses by "only revealing something"

 

We have vast swaths of the Bible re-written and added to as an "inspired translation" purely plucked from the air if we regard it as "only revealing something.

 

Please understand the way I see this. In order to make your position at all credible to ANYONE who is not LDS you need to show this is somehow a "real translation", which your theory, as far as I can see, does NOT do.

 

Besides the difference being semantic, here is another problem:

 

The "glossary" as Hillel2 calls it was revealed to a seer, and that is what made it useful to us.  It is not useful without thing things external to it.  Without the "glossary," you cannot see how the abstract symbols relate to the things they are meant to represent.  Once you have the glossary, then the relationships between the symbols and the things they are made to represent become evident.  I have shown the relationships to the symbols and their assigned meanings, and in every case, there are two facts:  1) The symbol doesn't LITERALLY mean what the assigned meaning says it means.  2) The symbol always shares attributes with the thing it represents, so they are tied together with the attributes they share in common.

 

I think I finally got what a "hash" is - kind of- thanks to this link:  https://danielmiessler.com/study/encoding_encryption_hashing/

 

But if the key, or the "hash" is REVEALED then you do not escape YOUR OWN CRITICISM about "Joseph only revealing something".

 

It's still all the catalyst theory.  Joseph had the hash revealed to him, and we don't even have the complete hash (if I am not mistaken about your theory which remains rather cryptic)

 

Joseph looked at the papyrus and "received by revelation" the Book of Abraham.   Yes, you have added (if you are right) some intermediate steps, but I still fail to see how this changes the big picture.

[mfbukowski]

Since characters that are abstractions require an outside assignment in a table of assignments, and you haven't provided one like I said you would have to, I guess you are expecting me to be a seer.  Sorry.  I don't qualify.  So, you have not refuted me.  You have proven me correct.

But wait a minute

 

Seers "only reveal" what they have "seen".   Yes Joseph was a seer, but after all he "just revealed things".

 

Definitely the catalyst theory.

[Thinking]

DragonLancer:

 

Let's say that we are studying quadratics and drawing the graphs (parabolas). A simple quadratic equation is y = x². Different values of x will result in different values of y. The 2 values together create an ordered pair, the location of which is on the graph of y = x². No matter what real value I pick for x, the resulting y value will always place the ordered pair on the graph of y = x². In other words, changing the value of the variable doesn't change the story. You're changing the story.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Thinking

[mfbukowski]

If it all works out, the value of this could be to show what Joseph REALLY meant by the word "translating" something as opposed to "just revealing" it.

 

Remember he said the "translated" the Inspired Version as well- and blatantly included whole sections added and re-written for everyone to see.   He left the facsimilies even AFTER the Anthon affair fully aware that Egyptian was already being translated and that they could be branded as "incorrect".

 

He had already been burned once and wasn't likely to want that to happen again - so clearly he knew well and intentionally left us evidence that he was using the word "translate" in a way which is quite different from the way we use it today.

 

I have never had a problem seeing the BOA as the word of God, from day one.   I didn't care if he was looking at the pattern on the wallpaper and "translating" it or staring into a fire or a pattern on the rug or meditating on a mandala to "translate" it and I still don't.

 

You cannot judge a religious book by its provenance.   But I guess some people need to think that if it's old it must be true.  Some old books have truth, some new books have truth. 

 

Old and new and having truth are all independent variables as I see it that have little to do with each other

 

But that is the word he used, and I have absolutely no problem with it and never have.

[DragonLancer]

He told you what it was. It was a refutation. You know what it means. Now you just need to explain how Cinepro abstracted it all from that one character. This is pretty much what you claimed to do with the facsimile.

Hint: You have to start on the right side squiggle first.

 

Not at all.  I told you that in the Book of Abraham it must be an Egyptian character with an assignment in a key.  You have grossly misconstrued deliberately what I have said this whole time.  You give me nothing and then tell me to be psychic.  Get a grip.

[DragonLancer]

DragonLancer:

 

Let's say that we are studying quadratics and drawing the graphs (parabolas). A simple quadratic equation is y = x². Different values of x will result in different values of y. The 2 values together create an ordered pair, the location of which is on the graph of y = x². No matter what real value I pick for x, the resulting y value will always place the ordered pair on the graph of y = x². In other words, changing the value of the variable doesn't change the story. You're changing the story.

 

I'm not changing the story at all.  The set of attributes or criteria for a character defines the "story" that a thing must fit in order to use the symbol.  The story is the structure of the equation.

 

Liskov Substitution example from the list of SOLID principles in OOP (Object oriented programming):

 

Liskov states that an object only has an "IS A" relationship with something else if it is functionally the same and inherits the same criteria/constraints from the parent type/class.

A business logic constraint on an object ensures that the criteria that an object has is followed.

 

The typical example of Liskov is that most people think that a square is always a rectangle, but that is not the case.  Just because they are visually similar, they are functionally different.

 

The constraint on a type representing a square ensures that the square must have all sides be of equal length.  In other words, where left side = A, right side = B, top side = C, and bottom side = D, then A=B=C=D.

 

The constraint on a type representing a rectangle ensures that the rectangle must have top and bottom of equal length, and left side and right side of equal length.  In other words, where  In other words, where left side = A, right side = B, top side = C, and bottom side = D, then A=B and C=D.  But A doesn't necessarily equal C and so forth.  Therefore, they are functionally dissimilar.

 

Therefore, the two types are not interchangeable logically, because if you have code that expects a rectangle, it will break if you give it a square.  Therefore, the two do not have an "IS A" relationship.  Despite common assumption that a square is a kind of rectangle, it is not a rectangle.

 

Anything that "IS A" square where it meets the basic functional criteria in the business logic encapsulated in the base class, can be represented by a square, where all sides are always equal.  The square object cannot represent things that do not have this constraint or criterion.

 

Anything that "IS A" rectangle where it meets the functional criterion in the business logic can be represented by a rectangle, where all sides are not always equal, but where the top and bottom are always equal, and the right and left are always equal.

 

Therefore, if rectangle is my base type, and I subclass off of it, anything that inherits from it "IS A" rectangle.

 

If square is my base type, and I subclass off of it, anything that inherits from it "IS A" square.

 

My base types are my abstractions, because anything that "IS A" square can be cast back to square.  Anything that "IS A" rectangle can be cast back to a rectangle.  Subclassing to more concrete types does not change the functional requirement in the business requirements, because those basic criterion are ensured in the logic in the base class.

 

Therefore, in C#:

 

class Square

{

       private int _sideLength=0;

 

 

 

       public int Left

       {

           get

            {

                 return _sideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _sideLength = value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Right

       {

           get

            {

                 return _sideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _sideLength = value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Top

       {

           get

            {

                 return _sideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _sideLength = value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Bottom

       {

           get

            {

                 return _sideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _sideLength = value;

            }

       }     

}

 

 

class Rectangle

{

       private int _horizontalSideLength=0;

       private int _verticalSideLength=0;

 

 

       public int Left

       {

           get

            {

                 return _verticalSideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _verticalSideLength= value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Right

       {

           get

            {

                 return _verticalSideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _verticalSideLength= value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Top

       {

           get

            {

                 return _horizontalSideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _horizontalSideLength= value;

            }

       }

 

       public int Bottom

       {

           get

            {

                 return _horizontalSideLength;

             }

            set

            {

                 _horizontalSideLength= value;

            }

       }     

}

 

Square and Rectangle are NOT functionally interchangeable, despite the fact that they have similar properties of Top, Bottom, Left, Right.  The internal constraints make them apples and oranges.  Anything that inherits from either is by definition in an "IS A" relationship with its parent class.  Because it meets the same criterion that is ensured by the logic in the class.

 

This is why I say, analogous to this, an Egyptian symbol, as an abstraction, to represent something, can only represent something that is interchangeable with it, that meets its same "story," its same constraints, its same criteria, its same structure.

 

The egyptian symbol abstraction is the analogy to the base class/type.  The assignment that is a concrete type is a concrete assignment that still fits the criteria in the base class/type notwithstanding that it has additional information aside from this structure or criteria.

Edited March 24, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

First of all, I think that is really a completely semantic difference and I would be cautious of speaking about "only revealing" something. 

 

We have no plates for the BOM so that claim is not testable as "translation".  We know Joseph received the entire Book of Moses by "only revealing something"

 

We have vast swaths of the Bible re-written and added to as an "inspired translation" purely plucked from the air if we regard it as "only revealing something.

 

Please understand the way I see this. In order to make your position at all credible to ANYONE who is not LDS you need to show this is somehow a "real translation", which your theory, as far as I can see, does NOT do.

 

Besides the difference being semantic, here is another problem:

 

 

 

 

I think I finally got what a "hash" is - kind of- thanks to this link:  https://danielmiessler.com/study/encoding_encryption_hashing/

 

But if the key, or the "hash" is REVEALED then you do not escape YOUR OWN CRITICISM about "Joseph only revealing something".

 

It's still all the catalyst theory.  Joseph had the hash revealed to him, and we don't even have the complete hash (if I am not mistaken about your theory which remains rather cryptic)

 

Joseph looked at the papyrus and "received by revelation" the Book of Abraham.   Yes, you have added (if you are right) some intermediate steps, but I still fail to see how this changes the big picture.

 

I'm not going to split hairs on this one with you, but I believe that in this case translation means relaying ancient information in the modern day, and restoring in modern speech that which is from the past.  You can do whatever you want with that.

[Thinking]

The typical example of Liskov is that most people think that a square is always a rectangle, but that is not the case.  Just because they are visually similar, they are functionally different.

 

The constraint on a type representing a square ensures that the square must have all sides be of equal length.  In other words, where left side = A, right side = B, top side = C, and bottom side = D, then A=B=C=D.

 

The constraint on a type representing a rectangle ensures that the rectangle must have top and bottom of equal length, and left side and right side of equal length.  In other words, where  In other words, where left side = A, right side = B, top side = C, and bottom side = D, then A=B and C=D.  But A doesn't necessarily equal C and so forth.  Therefore, they are functionally dissimilar.

 

Therefore, the two types are not interchangeable logically, because if you have code that expects a rectangle, it will break if you give it a square.  Therefore, the two do not have an "IS A" relationship.  Despite common assumption that a square is a kind of rectangle, it is not a rectangle.

 

Anything that "IS A" square where it meets the basic functional criteria in the business logic encapsulated in the base class, can be represented by a square, where all sides are always equal.  The square object cannot represent things that do not have this constraint or criterion.

 

Anything that "IS A" rectangle where it meets the functional criterion in the business logic can be represented by a rectangle, where all sides are not always equal, but where the top and bottom are always equal, and the right and left are always equal.

 

Therefore, if rectangle is my base type, and I subclass off of it, anything that inherits from it "IS A" rectangle.

 

If square is my base type, and I subclass off of it, anything that inherits from it "IS A" square.

 

First of all, your description of the square and the rectangle are incomplete (what you described are the parallelogram and the rhombus).

 

For your review I have listed the properties of each.

 

Rectangle: 4 right angles, congruent diagonals, opposite sides congruent, bisecting diagonals

Square: 4 right angles, congruent diagonals, all sides congruent, bisecting diagonals, perpendicular diagonals, diagonals bisect the right angles

 

The only way that the code will break if it is expecting a rectangle, and a square is entered is if the code is restricted to rectangles that are not squares. Some rectangles are squares and some are not squares. You stated "A doesn't necessarily equal C" which means that A might equal C, resulting in a square. Every property of a rectangle (4 right angles, congruent diagonals, opposite sides congruent, bisecting diagonals) is a property of a square, which means that every square truly is a rectangle, even if you think that it isn't.

 

Of course maybe the words in the definitions are variables, so the definitions really mean something else entirely and I have been wasting that last 24 years trying to help my students understand the complex world of mathematics.

[DragonLancer]

First of all, your description of the square and the rectangle are incomplete (what you described are the parallelogram and the rhombus).

 

For your review I have listed the properties of each.

 

Rectangle: 4 right angles, congruent diagonals, opposite sides congruent, bisecting diagonals

Square: 4 right angles, congruent diagonals, all sides congruent, bisecting diagonals, perpendicular diagonals, diagonals bisect the right angles

 

The only way that the code will break if it is expecting a rectangle, and a square is entered is if the code is restricted to rectangles that are not squares. Some rectangles are squares and some are not squares. You stated "A doesn't necessarily equal C" which means that A might equal C, resulting in a square. Every property of a rectangle (4 right angles, congruent diagonals, opposite sides congruent, bisecting diagonals) is a property of a square, which means that every square truly is a rectangle, even if you think that it isn't.

 

Of course maybe the words in the definitions are variables, so the definitions really mean something else entirely and I have been wasting that last 24 years trying to help my students understand the complex world of mathematics.

 

Wrong.  Because you said it with your own words that the code will break, because of the restriction.  That's the point.  And I get that you can make it more complex by giving the "technical definition" of the shapes etc., and so forth and so on.  I made my point I think for people that know the LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle), but it seems that you don't know what I'm talking about.  You are focusing on functionality of an equation, so that is where my focus is too, as fuctionality is what I mean for criteria, etc. in this case.  I didn't want to get in to technicalities this far but you kind of decided that you were going to push it into technicalities.  Yes, when A just happens to be the same as C in the "rectangle" type, it does "look" like a square, and may even have the values where all sides are equal in the rectangle type.  But the functionality is not enforced, which is my point.  The square is not truly a square unless the functionality is enforced.  Just because its current state of its values makes it resemble a square doesn't make it functionally a square, so no, you are wrong, because the functionality must be enforced for it to be truly, functionally a square.  So, functionally speaking, in this case, it is still not a square in spite of your insistence that it can be, because of a lack of enforcement that would ensure it is squareness. The functional aspects of the things are the question at hand, which is what the Liskov substitution is concerned, not necessarily the appearance of the thing.  Functionality is the point.  Get past appearances.  Functionally, you are simply wrong.  And functionally, anything that meets your equation that you gave me, meets the requirements of the "story" to use your terminology.  Anything else violates it.  And if you attempt to have rectangle be the parent type of square, then its primary constraints are violated by the square, and you introduce a "bug".  You decided to challenge my point of view using a functionality example.  I countered with the principle that governs functionality.  You were concerned with things that violate a "story."  Well, a rectangle, pretending to be a square because of its current state of its values is a violation of "story."  Because its "story" is that when its values change on one side, that makes the other values change accordingly.  and the rectangle type does not ensure that.

 

A typical example that violates LSP is a Square class that derives from a Rectangle class, assuming getter and setter methods exist for both width and height. The Square class always assumes that the width is equal with the height. If a Square object is used in a context where a Rectangle is expected, unexpected behavior may occur because the dimensions of a Square cannot (or rather should not) be modified independently. This problem cannot be easily fixed: if we can modify the setter methods in the Square class so that they preserve the Square invariant (i.e., keep the dimensions equal), then these methods will weaken (violate) the post conditions for the Rectangle setters, which state that dimensions can be modified independently. 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

Edited March 24, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

Just FYI, this thread has gone on far longer than I care about, so I'm out, unless there are any more genuine questions about anything.  Non-genuine things that are time-wasters will no longer be answered by me on this thread.  Thanks.

[Thinking]

Wrong.  Because you said it with your own words that the code will break, because of the restriction.  That's the point.  And I get that you can make it more complex by giving the "technical definition" of the shapes etc., and so forth and so on.  I made my point I think for people that know the LSP (Liskov Substitution Principle), but it seems that you don't know what I'm talking about.  You are focusing on functionality of an equation, so that is where my focus is too, as fuctionality is what I mean for criteria, etc. in this case.  I didn't want to get in to technicalities this far but you kind of decided that you were going to push it into technicalities.  Yes, when A just happens to be the same as C in the "rectangle" type, it does "look" like a square, and may even have the values where all sides are equal in the rectangle type.  But the functionality is not enforced, which is my point.  The square is not truly a square unless the functionality is enforced.  Just because its current state of its values makes it resemble a square doesn't make it functionally a square, so no, you are wrong, because the functionality must be enforced for it to be truly, functionally a square.  So, functionally speaking, in this case, it is still not a square in spite of your insistence that it can be, because of a lack of enforcement that would ensure it is squareness. The functional aspects of the things are the question at hand, which is what the Liskov substitution is concerned, not necessarily the appearance of the thing.  Functionality is the point.  Get past appearances.  Functionally, you are simply wrong.  And functionally, anything that meets your equation that you gave me, meets the requirements of the "story" to use your terminology.  Anything else violates it.  And if you attempt to have rectangle be the parent type of square, then its primary constraints are violated by the square, and you introduce a "bug".  You decided to challenge my point of view using a functionality example.  I countered with the principle that governs functionality.  You were concerned with things that violate a "story."  Well, a rectangle, pretending to be a square because of its current state of its values is a violation of "story."  Because its "story" is that when its values change on one side, that makes the other values change accordingly.  and the rectangle type does not ensure that.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

 

You're getting your words mixed up, probably because they are variables. If the code says A is not necessarily equal to C, A equaling C won't break the code.

 

If all you need is the functionality of a rectangle, then either any rectangle or a square will do. The set of squares is a subset of the set of rectangles. There are no squares that are not rectangles.

[DragonLancer]

You're getting your words mixed up, probably because they are variables. If the code says A is not necessarily equal to C, A equaling C won't break the code.

 

If all you need is the functionality of a rectangle, then either any rectangle or a square will do. The set of squares is a subset of the set of rectangles. There are no squares that are not rectangles.

 

You can find fault with my typos if you wish.  You know the spirit of my message.  You are wrong because you are not an Object Oriented Programmer and you have no idea what the Spirit of the Liskov Substitution Principle is, so I would accept that coming from an expert in something you are not an expert in.  You didn't even read the supplied reading material that I gave you so that you could familiarize yourself with it.  You seem to have ignored the reason why, functionally, you are wrong.  You are allowing yourself to be bamboozled by appearance.  Your message to me was about functionality.  I countered with a functionality argument, specifically to point out why it is that functionality is key, not appearance.  And now you deny what I am saying as a Senior Software Engineer who is an expert in Object Oriented Design and Enterprise Systems Design, and who mentors lower level programmers.  Do you really believe there is the slightest chance you are right on this point?  You are arguing with computer scientists at MIT that are the architects of this principle and the SOLID principles and the GRASP principles, not just me.  You should really rethink what you are saying.

 

Again, this is it.  I am no longer dwelling on time wasters here for people that can't get it and don't want to get it.

Again, for the genuinely interested:

http://www.pmg.csail.mit.edu/barbara_liskov.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object-oriented_design%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRASP_(object-oriented_design)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/56860/what-is-the-liskov-substitution-principle

Edited March 24, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Thinking]

You can find fault with my typos if you wish.  You know the spirit of my message.

 

Your typo changed the message, just like it would change a computer program.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not going to split hairs on this one with you, but I believe that in this case translation means relaying ancient information in the modern day, and restoring in modern speech that which is from the past.  You can do whatever you want with that.

How is it "ancient information" if the hash needed function was a revelation to Joseph?

 

No revelation, no "Ancient information".  The Egyptians did not create the alleged "hash function"- God or Joseph did.

[The Nehor]

You can find fault with my typos if you wish.  You know the spirit of my message.  You are wrong because you are not an Object Oriented Programmer and you have no idea what the Spirit of the Liskov Substitution Principle is, so I would accept that coming from an expert in something you are not an expert in.  You didn't even read the supplied reading material that I gave you so that you could familiarize yourself with it.  You seem to have ignored the reason why, functionally, you are wrong.  You are allowing yourself to be bamboozled by appearance.  Your message to me was about functionality.  I countered with a functionality argument, specifically to point out why it is that functionality is key, not appearance.  And now you deny what I am saying as a Senior Software Engineer who is an expert in Object Oriented Design and Enterprise Systems Design, and who mentors lower level programmers.  Do you really believe there is the slightest chance you are right on this point?  You are arguing with computer scientists at MIT that are the architects of this principle and the SOLID principles and the GRASP principles, not just me.  You should really rethink what you are saying.

 

Again, this is it.  I am no longer dwelling on time wasters here for people that can't get it and don't want to get it.

Again, for the genuinely interested:

http://www.pmg.csail.mit.edu/barbara_liskov.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liskov_substitution_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_(object-oriented_design)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRASP_(object-oriented_design)

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/56860/what-is-the-liskov-substitution-principle

We all gaze in awe at your programming brilliance and wonder why you are bragging about it as if it relates to interpreting Egyptian funerary documents.

[Ahab]

Hmmm. Only 1 fan out of ??? how many ??? that got his message?

Oh well. At least I like what I got.

[Thinking]

You can find fault with my typos if you wish.  You know the spirit of my message.  You are wrong because you are not an Object Oriented Programmer and you have no idea what the Spirit of the Liskov Substitution Principle is, so I would accept that coming from an expert in something you are not an expert in.  You didn't even read the supplied reading material that I gave you so that you could familiarize yourself with it.  You seem to have ignored the reason why, functionally, you are wrong.  You are allowing yourself to be bamboozled by appearance.  Your message to me was about functionality.  I countered with a functionality argument, specifically to point out why it is that functionality is key, not appearance.  And now you deny what I am saying as a Senior Software Engineer who is an expert in Object Oriented Design and Enterprise Systems Design, and who mentors lower level programmers.  Do you really believe there is the slightest chance you are right on this point?  You are arguing with computer scientists at MIT that are the architects of this principle and the SOLID principles and the GRASP principles, not just me.  You should really rethink what you are saying.

 

We need a chest thumping emoticon. Mods, will you work on that?

[mfbukowski]

Just FYI, this thread has gone on far longer than I care about, so I'm out, unless there are any more genuine questions about anything.  Non-genuine things that are time-wasters will no longer be answered by me on this thread.  Thanks.

Yet without an explanation in plain english.

 

Black boxes are fine as long as you explain what they allegedly do

 

Here is an example:

 

"An Egyptian wrote the papyrus in blankety blank AD.  I have found that Joseph used characters in that manuscript to formulate a kind of language understood by computer programmers to translate the BOA.  This was an actual "translation" because the ancient information came from (Manuscript thingy xyz) which the Egyptians used as well as shown in (manuscript thingy abc).

 

This shows that though Joseph was inspired, this is clearly a rendition in modern language of information which clearly Abraham himself might have actually written.

 

For those who are technically aware of how this works, I will no demonstrate how exactly the hash transmits this information"

 

See how easy?  Now ordinary inferior mortals like us can actually evaluate whether or not the theory is worth spending the countless human hours wasted on this thread to study it out to see if you are right.

 

Of course because you ARE right, suddenly you are a superstar!!

 

All you need to provide is a simple explanation pointing to the black box which contains the details beyond the understanding of we of lesser intellect.  Then the smart guys take over and tell us if the black box works or not.

 

See how it works?

 

But so far all we have is smoke and mirrors and details beyond most people's understanding because it is computerese.  It seems that you relish that and that makes it seem like you are concealing something.

 

You are not communicating to non-specialists at all.  THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO COMMUNICATE WITH SPECIALISTS.  You need an LDS Egyptologist computer programmer guy who speaks English to explain it if you cannot.