If you want a more complex use case, create a loop 10 times around the collection add loop to insert a calculator into the collection. On Apr 21, 2013 12:48 AM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here's a semipractical use case: add 1 to the display in each of a dynamic > collection of calculators (math domain widgets). What can do this as > end-user programming? It's fairly obvious that a textual language can do > this. Can any graphical ones? Can something like lively kernel do this by > demonstration? How about excel? With a dynamic collection? What will > work on android jelly bean? I'm away from my desktop right now. > On Apr 21, 2013 12:22 AM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looking for systems like this I found app-inventor activity starter on my > phone. Has anyone tried this? > On Apr 21, 2013 12:14 AM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I believe the key to this is to create domain widgets. I am not sure if >> this needs to be something like etoys, maybe a combination between forth >> and etoys. I believe collections can make for interesting domain widgets. >> I have only programmed systems with collections of text. What systems work >> on collections of domain widgets? >> On Apr 21, 2013 12:02 AM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yeah, you're right. The theory is coming up with a syntax free >>> language. Can you? >>> On Apr 21, 2013 12:00 AM, "David Barbour" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson <[email protected]>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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> only in practice >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson >>>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on >>>>>>>>> ESPN. >>>>>>>>> On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> fonc mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> fonc mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> fonc mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fonc mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>>> >>>>
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
