I agree that variable/field naming is a slippery slope, but the better the typing and typing system, the easier it is to use variable names like “obj” without it becoming unreadable. The information that writers like to hide in the names is encoded in the types instead, and the compiler can enforce type consistency. Names are a potentially misleading style.
I think any of the frontier models can convert between natural language and a language like Lean 4. The encoded semantics are still loaded with all the common biases of fluent users of English and western culture, but at least the result is definite, computer readable, and can be refined or shown to be wrong once in some context after adopting all that implicit meaning. From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of glen <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 at 9:59 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] mental imagery Yeah, I like it too. But I maintain my worry that what's important here is *our* ability to [un|re]bind the symbols. And what Marcus' "literate" code does is cajole us into a particular binding. It's a classic confidence trick. (To be clear, that's a good thing.) Rather than name one's variables "x" or "P", we name them mnemonically so as to share subjectivity with others. Mostly, we use positive affect names. Few people would find it easy to read code where the names were cuss words, words like "nazi", or violent. So we name them not only so as to communicate their *intended* purpose (never mind that intention can be wrong/misleading), but also as a coercive/rhetorical act. Changing gears a bit, I ran across the "as if" personality <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_disturbance <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_disturbance>>. I can't help but wonder about a room full of agents "concealing their inner emptiness, living *as if* they had genuine feelings and desires." >8^D I'm at risk of Get-Off-My-Lawn, here. But 90% of the time, when I'm in a room with more than, say, 5 people, it *feels* to me like they're all philosophical zombies, maybe me included. Are we all *actually* "as if" personalities? And those who think they're not are delusional? On 11/24/25 5:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > I'm finding your Lean4 fascinating for it's balance between intuitive enough > to (almost) read and (known to be) formal enough to trust to be > testable/executeable. > > Reminds me vaguely of the semester I learned BNF and kept finding myself > expressing (only to myself) observations about the world in that idiom... > later Prolog captured that part of me (for a while) . > -- ¡sıɹƎ ןıɐH ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα σώσω.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
