Mixing
Why do pushdown automata use a stack?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm taking a computer theory class and my professor told us that a pushdown automaton cannot use data structures other than a stack (like a queue or multiple stacks). Why is that?
automata pushdown-automata computation-models
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm taking a computer theory class and my professor told us that a pushdown automaton cannot use data structures other than a stack (like a queue or multiple stacks). Why is that?
automata pushdown-automata computation-models
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm taking a computer theory class and my professor told us that a pushdown automaton cannot use data structures other than a stack (like a queue or multiple stacks). Why is that?
automata pushdown-automata computation-models
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
I'm taking a computer theory class and my professor told us that a pushdown automaton cannot use data structures other than a stack (like a queue or multiple stacks). Why is that?
automata pushdown-automata computation-models
automata pushdown-automata computation-models
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
edited 4 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
2,4961323
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
asked 9 hours ago
LTKills
84
84
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you change the stack to the queue or multiple stacks, the power of computation will be increased! (as you know, we can model a queue with two stacks). If we use a queue, it can be powerful as a Turing machine. However, the computation power of a push-down automaton is not that much!
You can know more about that here.
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you take finite control with different memory models, the resulting classes of automata have very different capabilities. In fact, that's a huge part of what automata theory concerns itself with.
Just a few examples:
- finite memory --> regular
- single stack --> context-free
- single queue --> Turing-complete
- two stacks --> Turing-complete
- infinite tape --> Turing-complete
- heaps --> we don't really know
And so on and so on.
Note that you can also modify other elements:
- The alphabet -- make it infinite, or continuous.
- The transition function -- make it a relation, or allow $varepsilon$-transitions.
- The state set -- make it infinite, or allow multiple starting states.
- The inputs -- make them infinite, or trees, or timed sequences.
Interesting things can happen!
That's the beauty of mathematical definitions: you usually get something. Then you can spend many months on finding out what it is you got. Maybe it's interesting, maybe not. Maybe it's useful (a dreaded question after talks!), maybe not. But it always is.
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
OmG and Raphael have already answered your question:
- pushdown automata use a stack because they're defined that way
- if they didn't use a stack, what you'd get is a different type of automaton, with different properties
So at this point you may ask: but why does my professor present the pushdown automaton, not some other kind of automaton? What makes the pushdown automaton, with a stack, more interesting than an automaton with some other data structure?
The answer is that pushdown automata can recognize exactly the context-free languages, which were introduced early on in the history of computer science, in the 1950s, as a technique to describe the syntax of languages: both natural languages, such as English or Russian, and computer languages such as programming languages (the first programming language they described was FORTRAN).
This was a big deal at the time. Cybernetics and behaviorism were all the craze. Computers were starting to be applied commercially. One of the areas they were applied to was language processing. How can we describe language?
Well, it consists of utterances (things people say), that consist of sequences of items (words, or sounds). A person who wants to say something will emits those utterances; another person receives them, and makes sense out of them. What if we want to make a computer do the same thing? We will need to find a way to describe a language that can be taught to a computer. We will need a way to generate valid utterances that a computer can use, and a way to recognize those utterances that a computer can use - such that the utterances are actually the utterances of a language humans use, such as English or Russian.
Descriptions of devices that could do such things already existed: there were state machines and various kinds of automata. However, Noam Chomsky, a mathematician who was tasked with teaching a class at MIT on how to build software for automatic translation, realized state machines aren't powerful enough to describe natural languages such as English, because they cannot describe the phenomenon of recursion in language. He needed something similar, but with the power to describe recursion, and arrived at the context-free grammars. He proved that these can indeed describe more languages than state machines can, but fewer than some other techniques - a result known as the Chomsky hierarchy. He hoped they would describe languages such as English and Russian.
Context-free grammars generate utterances. Chomsky thought they basically described how a person generates sentences when speaking. You also need a device to describe how utterances are recognized. That is what pushdown automata are for. They can recognize exactly the utterances generated by a context-free grammar. So they were thought to describe basically how a human recognizes sentences when listening.
Soon afterwards, it was discovered that context-free languages aren't actually capable of describing the syntax of languages completely - you need all kinds of additional machinery to do it properly. This is true both for natural languages and artificial languages. (To be honest, I think Chomsky meant to come up with visibly pushdown languages, except he didn't realize the difference, and if he had, it would have saved us all a lot of hassle.)
However, context-free languages and pushdown automata are mathematically very simple and elegant devices, and the Chomsky hierarchy is a simple and elegant result, so they are very useful in education to explain the basics of computer-based language description and recognition (formal language theory). For this reason, they have continued to be a standard part of the theoretical computer science curriculum, and many techniques used in practice are based on them, so they really are requisite knowledge if you want to study anything related to natural language processing, programming language implementation, and other language-related topics.
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you change the stack to the queue or multiple stacks, the power of computation will be increased! (as you know, we can model a queue with two stacks). If we use a queue, it can be powerful as a Turing machine. However, the computation power of a push-down automaton is not that much!
You can know more about that here.
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you change the stack to the queue or multiple stacks, the power of computation will be increased! (as you know, we can model a queue with two stacks). If we use a queue, it can be powerful as a Turing machine. However, the computation power of a push-down automaton is not that much!
You can know more about that here.
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
If you change the stack to the queue or multiple stacks, the power of computation will be increased! (as you know, we can model a queue with two stacks). If we use a queue, it can be powerful as a Turing machine. However, the computation power of a push-down automaton is not that much!
You can know more about that here.
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
If you change the stack to the queue or multiple stacks, the power of computation will be increased! (as you know, we can model a queue with two stacks). If we use a queue, it can be powerful as a Turing machine. However, the computation power of a push-down automaton is not that much!
You can know more about that here.
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
answered 7 hours ago
OmG
1,027311
1,027311
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you take finite control with different memory models, the resulting classes of automata have very different capabilities. In fact, that's a huge part of what automata theory concerns itself with.
Just a few examples:
- finite memory --> regular
- single stack --> context-free
- single queue --> Turing-complete
- two stacks --> Turing-complete
- infinite tape --> Turing-complete
- heaps --> we don't really know
And so on and so on.
Note that you can also modify other elements:
- The alphabet -- make it infinite, or continuous.
- The transition function -- make it a relation, or allow $varepsilon$-transitions.
- The state set -- make it infinite, or allow multiple starting states.
- The inputs -- make them infinite, or trees, or timed sequences.
Interesting things can happen!
That's the beauty of mathematical definitions: you usually get something. Then you can spend many months on finding out what it is you got. Maybe it's interesting, maybe not. Maybe it's useful (a dreaded question after talks!), maybe not. But it always is.
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you take finite control with different memory models, the resulting classes of automata have very different capabilities. In fact, that's a huge part of what automata theory concerns itself with.
Just a few examples:
- finite memory --> regular
- single stack --> context-free
- single queue --> Turing-complete
- two stacks --> Turing-complete
- infinite tape --> Turing-complete
- heaps --> we don't really know
And so on and so on.
Note that you can also modify other elements:
- The alphabet -- make it infinite, or continuous.
- The transition function -- make it a relation, or allow $varepsilon$-transitions.
- The state set -- make it infinite, or allow multiple starting states.
- The inputs -- make them infinite, or trees, or timed sequences.
Interesting things can happen!
That's the beauty of mathematical definitions: you usually get something. Then you can spend many months on finding out what it is you got. Maybe it's interesting, maybe not. Maybe it's useful (a dreaded question after talks!), maybe not. But it always is.
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If you take finite control with different memory models, the resulting classes of automata have very different capabilities. In fact, that's a huge part of what automata theory concerns itself with.
Just a few examples:
- finite memory --> regular
- single stack --> context-free
- single queue --> Turing-complete
- two stacks --> Turing-complete
- infinite tape --> Turing-complete
- heaps --> we don't really know
And so on and so on.
Note that you can also modify other elements:
- The alphabet -- make it infinite, or continuous.
- The transition function -- make it a relation, or allow $varepsilon$-transitions.
- The state set -- make it infinite, or allow multiple starting states.
- The inputs -- make them infinite, or trees, or timed sequences.
Interesting things can happen!
That's the beauty of mathematical definitions: you usually get something. Then you can spend many months on finding out what it is you got. Maybe it's interesting, maybe not. Maybe it's useful (a dreaded question after talks!), maybe not. But it always is.
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
If you take finite control with different memory models, the resulting classes of automata have very different capabilities. In fact, that's a huge part of what automata theory concerns itself with.
Just a few examples:
- finite memory --> regular
- single stack --> context-free
- single queue --> Turing-complete
- two stacks --> Turing-complete
- infinite tape --> Turing-complete
- heaps --> we don't really know
And so on and so on.
Note that you can also modify other elements:
- The alphabet -- make it infinite, or continuous.
- The transition function -- make it a relation, or allow $varepsilon$-transitions.
- The state set -- make it infinite, or allow multiple starting states.
- The inputs -- make them infinite, or trees, or timed sequences.
Interesting things can happen!
That's the beauty of mathematical definitions: you usually get something. Then you can spend many months on finding out what it is you got. Maybe it's interesting, maybe not. Maybe it's useful (a dreaded question after talks!), maybe not. But it always is.
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
answered 4 hours ago
Raphael♦
56.5k22138307
56.5k22138307
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
OmG and Raphael have already answered your question:
- pushdown automata use a stack because they're defined that way
- if they didn't use a stack, what you'd get is a different type of automaton, with different properties
So at this point you may ask: but why does my professor present the pushdown automaton, not some other kind of automaton? What makes the pushdown automaton, with a stack, more interesting than an automaton with some other data structure?
The answer is that pushdown automata can recognize exactly the context-free languages, which were introduced early on in the history of computer science, in the 1950s, as a technique to describe the syntax of languages: both natural languages, such as English or Russian, and computer languages such as programming languages (the first programming language they described was FORTRAN).
This was a big deal at the time. Cybernetics and behaviorism were all the craze. Computers were starting to be applied commercially. One of the areas they were applied to was language processing. How can we describe language?
Well, it consists of utterances (things people say), that consist of sequences of items (words, or sounds). A person who wants to say something will emits those utterances; another person receives them, and makes sense out of them. What if we want to make a computer do the same thing? We will need to find a way to describe a language that can be taught to a computer. We will need a way to generate valid utterances that a computer can use, and a way to recognize those utterances that a computer can use - such that the utterances are actually the utterances of a language humans use, such as English or Russian.
Descriptions of devices that could do such things already existed: there were state machines and various kinds of automata. However, Noam Chomsky, a mathematician who was tasked with teaching a class at MIT on how to build software for automatic translation, realized state machines aren't powerful enough to describe natural languages such as English, because they cannot describe the phenomenon of recursion in language. He needed something similar, but with the power to describe recursion, and arrived at the context-free grammars. He proved that these can indeed describe more languages than state machines can, but fewer than some other techniques - a result known as the Chomsky hierarchy. He hoped they would describe languages such as English and Russian.
Context-free grammars generate utterances. Chomsky thought they basically described how a person generates sentences when speaking. You also need a device to describe how utterances are recognized. That is what pushdown automata are for. They can recognize exactly the utterances generated by a context-free grammar. So they were thought to describe basically how a human recognizes sentences when listening.
Soon afterwards, it was discovered that context-free languages aren't actually capable of describing the syntax of languages completely - you need all kinds of additional machinery to do it properly. This is true both for natural languages and artificial languages. (To be honest, I think Chomsky meant to come up with visibly pushdown languages, except he didn't realize the difference, and if he had, it would have saved us all a lot of hassle.)
However, context-free languages and pushdown automata are mathematically very simple and elegant devices, and the Chomsky hierarchy is a simple and elegant result, so they are very useful in education to explain the basics of computer-based language description and recognition (formal language theory). For this reason, they have continued to be a standard part of the theoretical computer science curriculum, and many techniques used in practice are based on them, so they really are requisite knowledge if you want to study anything related to natural language processing, programming language implementation, and other language-related topics.
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
OmG and Raphael have already answered your question:
- pushdown automata use a stack because they're defined that way
- if they didn't use a stack, what you'd get is a different type of automaton, with different properties
So at this point you may ask: but why does my professor present the pushdown automaton, not some other kind of automaton? What makes the pushdown automaton, with a stack, more interesting than an automaton with some other data structure?
The answer is that pushdown automata can recognize exactly the context-free languages, which were introduced early on in the history of computer science, in the 1950s, as a technique to describe the syntax of languages: both natural languages, such as English or Russian, and computer languages such as programming languages (the first programming language they described was FORTRAN).
This was a big deal at the time. Cybernetics and behaviorism were all the craze. Computers were starting to be applied commercially. One of the areas they were applied to was language processing. How can we describe language?
Well, it consists of utterances (things people say), that consist of sequences of items (words, or sounds). A person who wants to say something will emits those utterances; another person receives them, and makes sense out of them. What if we want to make a computer do the same thing? We will need to find a way to describe a language that can be taught to a computer. We will need a way to generate valid utterances that a computer can use, and a way to recognize those utterances that a computer can use - such that the utterances are actually the utterances of a language humans use, such as English or Russian.
Descriptions of devices that could do such things already existed: there were state machines and various kinds of automata. However, Noam Chomsky, a mathematician who was tasked with teaching a class at MIT on how to build software for automatic translation, realized state machines aren't powerful enough to describe natural languages such as English, because they cannot describe the phenomenon of recursion in language. He needed something similar, but with the power to describe recursion, and arrived at the context-free grammars. He proved that these can indeed describe more languages than state machines can, but fewer than some other techniques - a result known as the Chomsky hierarchy. He hoped they would describe languages such as English and Russian.
Context-free grammars generate utterances. Chomsky thought they basically described how a person generates sentences when speaking. You also need a device to describe how utterances are recognized. That is what pushdown automata are for. They can recognize exactly the utterances generated by a context-free grammar. So they were thought to describe basically how a human recognizes sentences when listening.
Soon afterwards, it was discovered that context-free languages aren't actually capable of describing the syntax of languages completely - you need all kinds of additional machinery to do it properly. This is true both for natural languages and artificial languages. (To be honest, I think Chomsky meant to come up with visibly pushdown languages, except he didn't realize the difference, and if he had, it would have saved us all a lot of hassle.)
However, context-free languages and pushdown automata are mathematically very simple and elegant devices, and the Chomsky hierarchy is a simple and elegant result, so they are very useful in education to explain the basics of computer-based language description and recognition (formal language theory). For this reason, they have continued to be a standard part of the theoretical computer science curriculum, and many techniques used in practice are based on them, so they really are requisite knowledge if you want to study anything related to natural language processing, programming language implementation, and other language-related topics.
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
OmG and Raphael have already answered your question:
- pushdown automata use a stack because they're defined that way
- if they didn't use a stack, what you'd get is a different type of automaton, with different properties
So at this point you may ask: but why does my professor present the pushdown automaton, not some other kind of automaton? What makes the pushdown automaton, with a stack, more interesting than an automaton with some other data structure?
The answer is that pushdown automata can recognize exactly the context-free languages, which were introduced early on in the history of computer science, in the 1950s, as a technique to describe the syntax of languages: both natural languages, such as English or Russian, and computer languages such as programming languages (the first programming language they described was FORTRAN).
This was a big deal at the time. Cybernetics and behaviorism were all the craze. Computers were starting to be applied commercially. One of the areas they were applied to was language processing. How can we describe language?
Well, it consists of utterances (things people say), that consist of sequences of items (words, or sounds). A person who wants to say something will emits those utterances; another person receives them, and makes sense out of them. What if we want to make a computer do the same thing? We will need to find a way to describe a language that can be taught to a computer. We will need a way to generate valid utterances that a computer can use, and a way to recognize those utterances that a computer can use - such that the utterances are actually the utterances of a language humans use, such as English or Russian.
Descriptions of devices that could do such things already existed: there were state machines and various kinds of automata. However, Noam Chomsky, a mathematician who was tasked with teaching a class at MIT on how to build software for automatic translation, realized state machines aren't powerful enough to describe natural languages such as English, because they cannot describe the phenomenon of recursion in language. He needed something similar, but with the power to describe recursion, and arrived at the context-free grammars. He proved that these can indeed describe more languages than state machines can, but fewer than some other techniques - a result known as the Chomsky hierarchy. He hoped they would describe languages such as English and Russian.
Context-free grammars generate utterances. Chomsky thought they basically described how a person generates sentences when speaking. You also need a device to describe how utterances are recognized. That is what pushdown automata are for. They can recognize exactly the utterances generated by a context-free grammar. So they were thought to describe basically how a human recognizes sentences when listening.
Soon afterwards, it was discovered that context-free languages aren't actually capable of describing the syntax of languages completely - you need all kinds of additional machinery to do it properly. This is true both for natural languages and artificial languages. (To be honest, I think Chomsky meant to come up with visibly pushdown languages, except he didn't realize the difference, and if he had, it would have saved us all a lot of hassle.)
However, context-free languages and pushdown automata are mathematically very simple and elegant devices, and the Chomsky hierarchy is a simple and elegant result, so they are very useful in education to explain the basics of computer-based language description and recognition (formal language theory). For this reason, they have continued to be a standard part of the theoretical computer science curriculum, and many techniques used in practice are based on them, so they really are requisite knowledge if you want to study anything related to natural language processing, programming language implementation, and other language-related topics.
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
OmG and Raphael have already answered your question:
- pushdown automata use a stack because they're defined that way
- if they didn't use a stack, what you'd get is a different type of automaton, with different properties
So at this point you may ask: but why does my professor present the pushdown automaton, not some other kind of automaton? What makes the pushdown automaton, with a stack, more interesting than an automaton with some other data structure?
The answer is that pushdown automata can recognize exactly the context-free languages, which were introduced early on in the history of computer science, in the 1950s, as a technique to describe the syntax of languages: both natural languages, such as English or Russian, and computer languages such as programming languages (the first programming language they described was FORTRAN).
This was a big deal at the time. Cybernetics and behaviorism were all the craze. Computers were starting to be applied commercially. One of the areas they were applied to was language processing. How can we describe language?
Well, it consists of utterances (things people say), that consist of sequences of items (words, or sounds). A person who wants to say something will emits those utterances; another person receives them, and makes sense out of them. What if we want to make a computer do the same thing? We will need to find a way to describe a language that can be taught to a computer. We will need a way to generate valid utterances that a computer can use, and a way to recognize those utterances that a computer can use - such that the utterances are actually the utterances of a language humans use, such as English or Russian.
Descriptions of devices that could do such things already existed: there were state machines and various kinds of automata. However, Noam Chomsky, a mathematician who was tasked with teaching a class at MIT on how to build software for automatic translation, realized state machines aren't powerful enough to describe natural languages such as English, because they cannot describe the phenomenon of recursion in language. He needed something similar, but with the power to describe recursion, and arrived at the context-free grammars. He proved that these can indeed describe more languages than state machines can, but fewer than some other techniques - a result known as the Chomsky hierarchy. He hoped they would describe languages such as English and Russian.
Context-free grammars generate utterances. Chomsky thought they basically described how a person generates sentences when speaking. You also need a device to describe how utterances are recognized. That is what pushdown automata are for. They can recognize exactly the utterances generated by a context-free grammar. So they were thought to describe basically how a human recognizes sentences when listening.
Soon afterwards, it was discovered that context-free languages aren't actually capable of describing the syntax of languages completely - you need all kinds of additional machinery to do it properly. This is true both for natural languages and artificial languages. (To be honest, I think Chomsky meant to come up with visibly pushdown languages, except he didn't realize the difference, and if he had, it would have saved us all a lot of hassle.)
However, context-free languages and pushdown automata are mathematically very simple and elegant devices, and the Chomsky hierarchy is a simple and elegant result, so they are very useful in education to explain the basics of computer-based language description and recognition (formal language theory). For this reason, they have continued to be a standard part of the theoretical computer science curriculum, and many techniques used in practice are based on them, so they really are requisite knowledge if you want to study anything related to natural language processing, programming language implementation, and other language-related topics.
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
answered 2 hours ago
reinierpost
2,4961323
2,4961323
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcs.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f98972%2fwhy-do-pushdown-automata-use-a-stack%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
It's the definition.
– Raphael♦
6 hours ago
Then why is this the definition? Why not a queue? Is there a reason for it?
– LTKills
4 hours ago
Somebody found it interesting. To your point: the "why" is historical. What are you really interested in?
– Raphael♦
4 hours ago