On 04/03/2011, at 9:31 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 3 March 2011 21:38, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 3 Mar 2011 13:03, "Miroslav Pokorny" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 21:47 +1100, Miroslav Pokorny wrote: > >> [ . . . ] > >> > > >> > Scientists dont worry about what language or notations etc their > >> > material is in, nor do they constantly strive to reinvent new means to > >> > express their work. > >> > >> This statement is wrong, fundamentally wrong. As a person who once was > >> in the theoretical particle physics area, I can assure you that > >> scientists care very much about the language and notations used for > >> expressions of models and experimental results. Moreover there is a > >> constant striving for better representations. In particle, there have > >> been many different forms of expression over the years using different > >> modelling systems. All mathematics, obviously, but various different > >> branches of it. > >> > > > > But are they constantly reinventing how they define or express formulas etc > > ? > > > > Yes, absolutely. This is a big part of professional mathematics. > > > Just look at all the different ways there are to assign a value to a > > variable, there are literally dozens of different symbols and tokens and > > yet im pretty sure mathematicians still use "=". > > > > There was a time before mathematicians used zero, then the argument between > newton and leibniz over notation for calculus, then matrices, and complex > numbers, and set theory. Not to mention notation introduced by theoretical > physicists. > > > Yes but everytime a new discpline starts exploring new concepts they dont go > and redefine the old basic core stuff like "+" is addition or "0" is zero. > The way we do calculus is based on Leibniz's style because it was an > improvement and more efficent than Newtons and it has lasted 250+ years. The > math types went on to bigger and better things, nobody has tried to change > those basics again and again jsut to be different. > > > > + and 0 ... Not only did set theory drastically change our understanding of > both concepts (go take a look at peano numbers/church numerals), but these > two are a particularly interesting choice. You've just identified the two > key operations of a Monoid, a distinctly 20th century concept. Monoids are > one of the more useful structures to come out of set theory/category theory > with respect to programming. Useful, for example, when implementing a sum > operation that'll work for collections regardless of the contained element > type. > > Calculus has evolved too. I've seen people performing calculus on matrices, > complex numbers, even quaternions. I'm also quite convinced that neither > Leibniz or Newton had any conception of concepts such as loop integrals. > > Of greater interest to us however, is Huets zipper - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper_(data_structure) > > Originally conceived in 1997, a subsequent paper (in 2000) redefined the > structure as being a derivative of a tree. The idea of recognising data > structures as an algebra, and being able to take a differential of this, is > now a prime area for ongoing research. > > +, 0, differential calculus... All new and redefined afresh in the 21st > century, our century, in a large part by computer science. > > So please, don't say that these concepts have remained untouched since their > conception. It's a claim that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. If > anything, calculus has probably been redefined more often than any other idea > in mathematics. > > Is there any point to all these dictionary entries - what point are you making ? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me. I seem to think you are agreeing the new stuff in math is just like java where the ecosystem (frameworks) grows but the basics (the language) remain constant. > Notation evolved to efficiently represent new concepts. Even, yes, equality > is now known to come in different forms, with different notation. > > >> > > >> [ . . . ] > >> > >> > By using java i can reuse more libraries than on other platforms or > >> > languages because its a better fit. > >> > > By using java-the-platform, yes. Scala is every bit as effective in using > these libraries as java-the-language is, by design. > > >> But high performance computation stuff will still be done in Fortran and > >> C++. If you are happy to exclude practicing your software development > >> activity in those areas then restricting yourself to the JVM is fine. > >> > > > > So what exactly are you saying, dont learn any new languages the old ones > > are just fine because they are closer to machine language and all that > > dynamic typing etc nonsense just makes everything slower ? > > No. He's saying that C and Fortran have characteristics that make them ideal > for that particular domain. This doesn't in any way imply that a dynamic > language isn't more suitable in a different domain. > > He is saying, however, that there are domains where java isn't the best > choice. > > Isnt that obivous ? I thought this thread wasnt about using wahts available > because you havbe no choice but rather trying to always jump to something > else because one can and one wants to experiment ? > > > > >> -- > >> > >> Russel. > >> ============================================================================= > >> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > >> sip:[email protected] > >> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > >> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > > > > > > > > > > -- > > mP > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "The Java Posse" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > mP > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > > > -- > Kevin Wright > > gtalk / msn : [email protected] > mail: [email protected] > vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright > quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright > twitter: @thecoda > > "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not > regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current > conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of > the ledger" ~ Dijkstra > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
