Talk:Recursion
From This Might Be A Wiki
Note that almost all of the songs with a recursion element come from Mr. Linnell. It would not be very surprising to find out that he has read Gödel, Escher, Bach, one of the sacred texts of American nerddom. --Nehushtan 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this seems to be interpretive. --Dunklekuh81
So with Stand on Your Head, I think Octoflange is right about what the song's saying. The song's kind of weird and sketchy with its imagery, but since the point is "stop taking advantage of us", the "why don't you take advantage of yourself" chorus means that he's got to stand on his own head, however you want to picture that. I don't have enough of an opinion whether that's recursion or not to say, but I do think that's the correct reasoning for the line. ~ magbatz 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Selfcallednowhere does have a point. Normally it would mean being upside down but in the context of your interpretation, you'd assume it's the other type of "standing on a head". And I must say that's a cool interpretation. It's TMBG-ish. So I agree. -- Buzzmusic100 ("Keep your voice down...")
- Right, that's how I saw it. You wouldn't say "stand on your own head" (instead of just "stand on your head") unless you were contrasting it with standing on someone else's head, which means the narrator is suggesting some sort of impossibly reflexive self-head-standing. --Octoflange 23:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I get that it's supposed to raise the idea of both, but thanks for acting like I'm an idiot who doesn't. (I'll also point out that it already has "upside-down" as a theme.) But even taking in that half of the meaning, it doesn't qualify as recursion. --Self Called Nowhere 00:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to think otherwise when your response to the idea being recursive is to callously discount the aspect being considered for recursion and simply state the other possible meaning, "pretty sure it means...that thing where you're upside down"? The possible recursion is that the physical position of standing on your head is "loopy". It might be too obvious or simple a picture to label it as recursion, but if you take the picture and trace the motion with your finger, from the head down, from the one that's standing and the one that's being stood on, you go in an infinite circle (makes me want to sing "head shoulders knees and toes head shoulders...").
Again, I don't want to be the one pushing to confirm that that's recursion, because all that's actually said in the song is "stand on your own head", but it's not an outright wrong idea.On second thought, why the hell not. Or is everyone at least happy if we put it in "briefly mentioned" with the "possibly construable maybe" qualifier? ~ magbatz- Hey Wiki, I made you a picture.
- ~ magblatz'd 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear in my edit summary but I was kind of in a hurry and out of it. As I said here, I do understand it containing/invoking both possible meanings. And I don't believe saying "this isn't right" qualifies as "callous." I believe how you're acting to me right now warrants that word a hell of a lot more, actually. And in his comments here all Octoflange says is that it's "impossible," which definitely does not qualify. But what the fuck ever, do what you want. --Self Called Nowhere 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- I took that tone with you because out of nowhere you seemed to say I wronged you. Look at my first post and you'll see that I intentionally tried to broaden who I was talking to, because this is a forum for all people to enter, and the terms of this "debate" had not yet been spelled out, and yes, because I didn't want to get into interpreting the ambiguous/vague phrase of your edit summary (and no one does expect an edit summary to be a full, representative statement). But you took the extra step and extracted from my statement a rudeness which wasn't there, which in my book allowed me to interpret what you had said to the full extent. Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but I also felt offended when you made me out to be an unthoughtful meanie.
- Anyway, I'm just trying to further the discussion. You used an incomplete thought as you removed SOYOH, but because I wanted to have the conversation before just dropping it, I tried to spell out the one side so the other could come in. Your response, "even considering what you said, it doesn't qualify as recursion" didn't say so very much. So I made the attempt to reclarify specifically what made it a recursive image, to the point where the counterargument could be made. Your latest response simply discounts part of the original wording that does not qualify. We ain't on no debate team, but I would like to hear whether anyone thinks the image of the stander-on/stood-on body loop is enough to be recursion, and whether that's really something we can take from the song. Or if not, can we at least be on the same page and not try to turn discussion of content to battling personal convictions? On a website like this I'm much more inclined to play a robot. ~ magbatz 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I said, "what the fuck ever, do what you want." As in, I'm seriously attempting to be done with this discussion. BUT, my point really was just the non-recursive part (the infinite loop thing makes an interesting point, I suppose, but as far as I can tell was not the original editor's idea about it at all), not the interpretation of the line, and I guess I should have said "also" in the edit summary, if that's all this is going to be about. But yes, whatever. Done. --Self Called Nowhere 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- ^yikes! we're all friends and tmbg fans here.
- As I said, "what the fuck ever, do what you want." As in, I'm seriously attempting to be done with this discussion. BUT, my point really was just the non-recursive part (the infinite loop thing makes an interesting point, I suppose, but as far as I can tell was not the original editor's idea about it at all), not the interpretation of the line, and I guess I should have said "also" in the edit summary, if that's all this is going to be about. But yes, whatever. Done. --Self Called Nowhere 01:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear in my edit summary but I was kind of in a hurry and out of it. As I said here, I do understand it containing/invoking both possible meanings. And I don't believe saying "this isn't right" qualifies as "callous." I believe how you're acting to me right now warrants that word a hell of a lot more, actually. And in his comments here all Octoflange says is that it's "impossible," which definitely does not qualify. But what the fuck ever, do what you want. --Self Called Nowhere 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to think otherwise when your response to the idea being recursive is to callously discount the aspect being considered for recursion and simply state the other possible meaning, "pretty sure it means...that thing where you're upside down"? The possible recursion is that the physical position of standing on your head is "loopy". It might be too obvious or simple a picture to label it as recursion, but if you take the picture and trace the motion with your finger, from the head down, from the one that's standing and the one that's being stood on, you go in an infinite circle (makes me want to sing "head shoulders knees and toes head shoulders...").
