How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means > reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the > famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be > removed. > On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, "John Carlson" <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user >> programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can >> compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of >> gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that? >> On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, >>> instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish >>> practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there. >>> On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> only in practice >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on >>>>> ESPN. >>>>> On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are >>>>>> there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess >>>>>> we >>>>>> are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more >>>>>> complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental >>>>>> as >>>>>> symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you >>>>>> still >>>>>> run into Russell's Paradox. >>>>>> On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <forman.si...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for >>>>>>> denoting >>>>>>> > that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of >>>>>>> the set? >>>>>>> > Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and >>>>>>> one that >>>>>>> > isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead >>>>>>> of me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary >>>>>>> Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth >>>>>>> Functors": >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the >>>>>>> columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are >>>>>>> equivalent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Name Logic Sets BA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alternation a∨b a∪b ab >>>>>>> Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b >>>>>>> Converse a←b a⊇b a(b) >>>>>>> Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b)) >>>>>>> ___ >>>>>>> NOR a↓b a∪b (ab) >>>>>>> ___ >>>>>>> Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set >>>>>>> stands for the set of everything, no? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> ~Simon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like >>>>>>> that of >>>>>>> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the >>>>>>> prison that >>>>>>> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but >>>>>>> incorporating the >>>>>>> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous >>>>>>> dreams, than >>>>>>> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity." >>>>>>> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World" >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> fonc mailing list >>>>>>> fonc@vpri.org >>>>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> fonc mailing list >>>>> fonc@vpri.org >>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fonc mailing list >>>> fonc@vpri.org >>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
