I would liken a syntax error to tripping while going after a ball. Neither is really what we are talking about. It's the semantics of the intended action if actually carried out. No?
-- Russ On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:05 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Thus spake Russ Abbott circa 10/01/2008 11:56 AM: > > Is catching/throwing a ball math? A robot would do these things using > math. > > But we don't, and we don't prove the result. We just check out the > result > > against reality. So why call it math? > > I would not call that math. > > > Or if you wouldn't call it math, how > > does it differ from writing a program, which also produces a > > result/product/effect. We may not treat that result as a mathematical > > object. As with catching/throwing a ball, we often just check it out > against > > the reality of its use. > > It differs from math because there is no way to achieve a compilation > failure (or a run-time failure in the case of dynamic languages) for > throwing a ball. > > I.e. there is no correct (especially syntactically correct) way to throw > a ball. Likewise, there is no incorrect way to throw a ball. But there > are [in]correct programs. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
