I think this is a valid critique of the title. Sorting means whatever it means in a specific context (dewey decimal system, post addresses, etc...).
Most languages are context sensitives, but generalized computing is fundamentally defined by a context free language in which a processing transition can execute and not care was previous states were. This gets blurry with recursion and generics and other syntactic sugar, but fundamentally state changes are still defined by the operation and instantaneous state and not the language itself.
So in our context-free language of generalized computers, sorting and ordering are the same.
I can’t really tell what you mean but I suspect that it doesn’t make any sense.
What on Earth do you mean when you say “generalized computing is fundamentally defined by a context free language in which a processing transition can execute and not care was previous states were”?
Perhaps you are just writing context free/sensitive when you mean something different from “the set of words that may be formed by starting with some nonterminal symbol S, following rules of the form A -> xy where A is any nonterminal and x and y are either terminal or nonterminal symbols, repeating until there are no nonterminals left.”
If you really mean something about all computations being expressible in a context free language then I suppose I would have to agree but I put it to you that a regular language would be sufficient.
The other thing I can’t understand is what this has to do with either the parent or the article?
Most languages are context sensitives, but generalized computing is fundamentally defined by a context free language in which a processing transition can execute and not care was previous states were. This gets blurry with recursion and generics and other syntactic sugar, but fundamentally state changes are still defined by the operation and instantaneous state and not the language itself.
So in our context-free language of generalized computers, sorting and ordering are the same.