>I am curious what you mean that recursion is a natural way of thinking. Can you expand on that?
>I found that recursion made sense to me as well, but that seems like selection bias.
If you look at "describing", some things are naturally described in a recursive fashion. At least a significant part of thinking is encoding non-verbal ideas in natural language. These include the obvious factorial function, but also such things as the chain rule for derivatives, or the use of subordinate clauses in a sentence, such that a grammatically valid sentence may become arbitrarily long, this achieved by continually attaching further thoughts, the process of doing such being predicated on an underlying -- metahumor.
I think recursion is best explained by doing. This is the definition of the divisor function, you implement it like this, etc.
>I found that recursion made sense to me as well, but that seems like selection bias.
If you look at "describing", some things are naturally described in a recursive fashion. At least a significant part of thinking is encoding non-verbal ideas in natural language. These include the obvious factorial function, but also such things as the chain rule for derivatives, or the use of subordinate clauses in a sentence, such that a grammatically valid sentence may become arbitrarily long, this achieved by continually attaching further thoughts, the process of doing such being predicated on an underlying -- metahumor.
I think recursion is best explained by doing. This is the definition of the divisor function, you implement it like this, etc.