Re: [fonc] Theory vs practice [syntax]
Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed. On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that? On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there. On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: only in practice On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.comwrote: Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN. On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox. On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, Simon Forman forman.si...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/13, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set? Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me. Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 Boundary Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth Functors: Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are equivalent. Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors). NameLogic Sets BA Alternation a∨b a∪b ab Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b Converse a←b a⊇b a(b) Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b)) ___ NOR a↓b a∪b (ab) ___ Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b) Biconditionala↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab) (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!) Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also. I don't know much about set theory but I think the Universal set stands for the set of everything, no? Cheers, ~Simon The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. --H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Theory vs practice [syntax]
How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed. On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that? On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there. On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: only in practice On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.comwrote: Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN. On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox. On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, Simon Forman forman.si...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/13, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set? Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me. Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 Boundary Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth Functors: Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are equivalent. Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors). NameLogic Sets BA Alternation a∨b a∪b ab Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b Converse a←b a⊇b a(b) Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b)) ___ NOR a↓b a∪b (ab) ___ Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b) Biconditionala↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab) (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!) Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also. I don't know much about set theory but I think the Universal set stands for the set of everything, no? Cheers, ~Simon The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. --H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Theory vs practice [syntax]
I believe the key to this is to create domain widgets. I am not sure if this needs to be something like etoys, maybe a combination between forth and etoys. I believe collections can make for interesting domain widgets. I have only programmed systems with collections of text. What systems work on collections of domain widgets? On Apr 21, 2013 12:02 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, you're right. The theory is coming up with a syntax free language. Can you? On Apr 21, 2013 12:00 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed. On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that? On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there. On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: only in practice On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.comwrote: Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN. On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox. On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, Simon Forman forman.si...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/13, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set? Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me. Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 Boundary Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth Functors: Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are equivalent. Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors). NameLogic Sets BA Alternation a∨b a∪b ab Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b Converse a←b a⊇b a(b) Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b)) ___ NOR a↓b a∪b (ab) ___ Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b) Biconditionala↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab) (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!) Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also. I don't know much about set theory but I think the Universal set stands for the set of everything, no? Cheers, ~Simon The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. --H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Theory vs practice [syntax]
Looking for systems like this I found app-inventor activity starter on my phone. Has anyone tried this? On Apr 21, 2013 12:14 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I believe the key to this is to create domain widgets. I am not sure if this needs to be something like etoys, maybe a combination between forth and etoys. I believe collections can make for interesting domain widgets. I have only programmed systems with collections of text. What systems work on collections of domain widgets? On Apr 21, 2013 12:02 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, you're right. The theory is coming up with a syntax free language. Can you? On Apr 21, 2013 12:00 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.comwrote: Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed. On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that? On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there. On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: only in practice On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.comwrote: Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN. On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox. On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, Simon Forman forman.si...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/13, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set? Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me. Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 Boundary Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth Functors: Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are equivalent. Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors). NameLogic Sets BA Alternation a∨b a∪b ab Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b Converse a←b a⊇b a(b) Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b)) ___ NOR a↓b a∪b (ab) ___ Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b) Biconditionala↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab) (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!) Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also. I don't know much about set theory but I think the Universal set stands for the set of everything, no? Cheers, ~Simon The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. --H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
