One approach I've been thinking about is to invert the information hiding
principle.
The problem with information hiding is that the interface and properties
exposed by a module is determined by the module: I am a... And some line
is drawn between which properties are implementation details, and
On 4/20/13, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote:
How do these handle infinite sets?
:D
You have to handle infinity the same way a computer does: make up a
special symbol and let it use different rules.
You make up a name and describe the behaviour of the thing named by
logical statements
You have to handle infinity the same way a computer does: make up a
special symbol and let it use different rules.
This is pretty much correct. For any concept of infinity, it should behave
consistently with what it represents in terms of the operators of a given
system. For example, in
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
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
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
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:
If there truly is a universal language, is it a systems language? A logic
language can describe hardware. What about things like pointers? Have
they come up with self-referential logic?
On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's better to work from examples,
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
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
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
Here's a semipractical use case: add 1 to the display in each of a dynamic
collection of calculators (math domain widgets). What can do this as
end-user programming? It's fairly obvious that a textual language can do
this. Can any graphical ones? Can something like lively kernel do this by
12 matches
Mail list logo
