On 3 Mar 2011 23:16, "Miroslav Pokorny" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. >
No, I'm claiming quite the opposite, that languages can and should evolve by redefining familiar concepts instead of clinging to them dogmatically. If, for example, arithmetic is the language and accountancy the framework, where would accountants now be if we'd refused to change the language by adding zero as a number? Claiming instead that you can get just the same benefits by working on just the possible applications of arithmetic. Many frameworks are simply not possible to effectively write in java, we need new languages that are compatible with the jvm. I consider this to be broadly analogous to the introduction of irrational numbers to the pre-existing rational number-line. Without that change to the underlying language, a great deal of contemporary maths would just not be possible. > >>>> 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.
