Re: [fonc] 90% glue code
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 which are the contract. So I was thinking, what if the roles were swapped. What if modules could not declare a public contract but instead just had to conform to any type, interface or property that a client depending on it would care to declare as a requirement. In effect changing the module description into a collection of You are a... statements. Kind of similar to how a structural type allow any module conforming to the interface without the module having to implement a particular nominal type. For one, declaring a contract for a dependency is rather easy as it is based on local reasoning: What do I do, what do I need? as compared to What do I do, what do others need? Another benefit would be that there is no arbitrary reduction of the modules full capabilities. For example a Java List only implementing Iterable couldn't be used by clients requiring an ordered and finite sequence. I would expect this to encourage module writers to declare the smallest set of properties possible to depend on so that there would be more focus on information shielding, what information to expose one self to, rather than what information not to expose to others. The problem with this approach is that the proof of conformance can't come from the module, and it's hardly productive to require each client to provide one. I guess in some sense this is partly solved by a mechanism such as type classes as done in Scala or Haskell. One problem with this scheme though is that they do this by means of a static dispatch, making it impossible to specialize implementations by runtime polymorphism. While I haven't played with it, I do believe that Clojure has solved it while preserving runtime polymorphism. BR, John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:13 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds like you want stone soup programminghttp://awelonblue.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/stone-soup-programming/. :D In retrospect, I've been disappointed with most techniques that involve providing information about module capabilities to some external configurator (e.g. linkers as constraint solvers). Developers are asked to grok at least two very different programming models. Hand annotations or hints become common practice because many properties cannot be inferred. The resulting system isn't elegantly metacircular, i.e. you need that 'configurator' in the loop and the metada with the inputs. An alternative I've been thinking about recently is to shift the link logic to the modules themselves. Instead of being passive bearers of information that some external linker glues together, the modules become active agents in a link environment that collaboratively construct the runtime behavior (which may afterwards be extracted). Developers would have some freedom to abstract and separate problem-specific link logic (including decision-making) rather than having a one-size-fits-all solution. Re: In my mind powerful languages thus means 98% requirements To me, power means something much more graduated: that I can get as much power as I need, that I can do so late in development without rewriting everything, that my language will grow with me and my projects. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM, John Nilsson j...@milsson.nu wrote: Maybe not. If there is enough information about different modules' capabilities, suitability for solving various problems and requirements, such that the required glue can be generated or configured automatically at run time. Then what is left is the input to such a generator or configurator. At some level of abstraction the input should transition from being glue and better be described as design. Design could be seen as kind of a gray area if thought of mainly as picking what to glue together as it still involves a significant amount of gluing ;) But even design should be possible to formalize enough to minimize the amount of actual design decisions required to encode in the source and what decisions to leave to algorithms though. So what's left is to encode the requirements as input to the designer. In my mind powerful languages thus means 98% requirements, 2% design and 0% glue. BR John Den 17 apr 2013 05:04 skrev Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net : So let's ask the obvious question, if we have powerful languages, and/or powerful libraries, is not an application comprised primarily of glue code that ties all the piece parts together in an application-specific way? David Barbour wrote: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Steve Wart st...@wart.ca mailto: st...@wart.ca wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich In real systems, 90% of code
Re: [fonc] 90% glue code [universal language]
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 that can be encoded in the notation. Several people have experimented with number notation systems inspired by or layered on top of the boundary/name-based notation, but the basic system is strictly binary logical, not numerical. I'm playing with expressions that denote circuits that compute mathematical functions, which is the obvious natural way to express numbers and do math with the notation, and of course anything a computer can be made to do (floating point, NaN, Infinity, etc) can be expressed in the notation. I'm hardly a sophisticated source for this stuff- I'm in way over my head -but there is a lot of rich and detailed information at the websites mentioned. Warm regards, ~Simon C. S. Pierce, Existential Graphs, circa 1890 Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form Bricken, http://iconicmath.com/ Shroup, http://www.lawsofform.org/ Burnett-Stuart, http://www.markability.net/ 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
Re: [fonc] 90% glue code [universal language]
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 Euclidean space, if you multiple infinity by a number, you get infinity back. If you invert infinity in a circle, you get the center of the circle as a result and so forth. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] 90% glue code [universal language]
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
Re: [fonc] 90% glue code [universal language]
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
Re: [fonc] 90% glue code [universal language]
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
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
[fonc] Universal language and system programming
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, 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
[fonc] Use case for graphical problem oriented widgets (POW, DSW)
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 demonstration? How about excel? With a dynamic collection? What will work on android jelly bean? I'm away from my desktop right now. On Apr 21, 2013 12:22 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote: 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
