On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:38:22PM -0800, Darren New wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >To repeat again, mathematics *can* be precise and *wants* to be precise but > >as communicated in mathematical *glyphs* as you say just isn't. It relies > >on > >lots of background info. > > But the same is true of an algorithm expressed in Python. LOTOS and > ACT.1 are the only programming languages *I* have seen that are fully > formalized. Even stuff like Estelle only formalizes the order of > execution of routines, without formalizing stuff like how integers work > or what "IF" means.
As I told Andy I'm not arguing against need for layers of abstraction. Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
