On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:29 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On this forum, 'Nile' is sometimes proffered as an example of the power of
equational reasoning, but is a domain specific model.
Isn't one of the points of idst/COLA/Frank/whatever-it-is-called-today to
simplify the
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we don't know whether time exists in the first place.
That only matters to people who want as close to the Universe as
possible.
To the rare scientist who is not also a philosopher, it only matters
This discussion reminds me of
http://www.ageofsignificance.org/
It's a philosophical analysis of what computation means and how, or if, it
can be separated from the machine implementing it. The author argues that
it cannot.
If you haven't read it you might find it interesting. Unfortunately only
I had this long response drafted criticizing Bloom/CALM and Lightweight
Time Warps, when I realized that we are probably again not aligned as to
which meta level we're discussing.
(my main criticism of Bloom/CALM was assumption of timesteps, which is an
indicator of a meta-framework relying on
I feel like these discussions are tangential to the larger issues
brought up on FONC and just serve to indulge personal interest
discussions. Aren't any of us interested in revolution? It won't
start with digging into existing stuff like this.
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Tristan Slominski
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
my main criticism of Bloom/CALM was assumption of timesteps, which is an
indicator of a meta-framework relying on something else to implement it
within reality
At the moment, we don't know whether or not
Existing stuff from outside of mainstream is exactly what you should be
digging into.
On Apr 12, 2013 12:08 PM, John Pratt jpra...@gmail.com wrote:
I feel like these discussions are tangential to the larger issues
brought up on FONC and just serve to indulge personal interest
discussions.
I did not specify that there is only one bridge, nor that you finish
processing a message from a bridge before we start processing another next.
If you model the island as a single actor, you would fail to represent many
of the non-deterministic interactions possible in the 'island as a set'
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's more of a pessimism about other models. [..] My
non-pessimism about actors is linked to Wolfram's cellular automata turing
machine [..] overwhelming consideration across all those hints is
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
relying on global knowledge when designing an actor system seems, to me,
not to be the right way
In our earlier discussion, you mentioned that actors model can be used to
implement lambda calculus. And this is true, given bog standard actors
model.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
To use David's analogy, there are some desirable properties that
programmers exploit which are inherently 3D and cannot be represented
in the 2D world. Of course, there are also 4D properties which our
3D
So it's message recognition and not actor recognition? Can actors
collaborate to recognize a message? I'm trying to put this in terms of
subjective/objective. In a subjective world there are only messages
(waves). In an objective world there are computers and routers and
networks (actors,
I think I am now bogged down in a Meta Tarpit :D
A good question to ask is: can I correctly and efficiently implement
actors model, given these physical constraints? One might explore the
limitations of scalability in the naive model. Another good question to ask
is: is there a not-quite
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
popular implementations (like Akka, for example) give up things such as
Object Capability for nothing.. it's depressing.
Indeed. Though, frameworks shouldn't rail too much against their hosts.
I still
Therefore, with respect to this property, you cannot (in general) reason
about or treat groups of two actors as though they were a single actor.
This is incorrect, well, it's based on a false premise.. this part is
incorrect/invalid? (an appropriate word escapes me):
But two actors can
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
This is incorrect, well, it's based on a false premise.. this part is
incorrect/invalid?
A valid argument with a false premise is called an 'unsound' argument. (
This helps a lot, thank you. Your arguments help me to understand how I
fail to communicate to others what I see in actor systems. Finding a way to
address the concerns you bring up will go a long way for my ability to
communicate what I see.
From their definition, I can know that a single actor
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with this, that I see, is that [..] in my physics view of
actors [..] Messages could be lost.
Understanding computational physics is a good thing. More people should do
it. A couple times each
On 07/04/2013, at 1:48 PM, Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com
wrote:
a lot of people seem to have the opinion the language a person communicates
in locks them into a certain way of thinking.
There is an entire book on the subject, Metaphors We Live By, which
profoundly
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:00:26PM -0700, David Barbour wrote:
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Julian Leviston [1]jul...@leviston.net
wrote:
LISP is perfectly precise. It's completely unambiguous. Of course,
this makes it incredibly difficult to use or understand sometimes.
Layering kind of implies a one dimensional space: lower vs. higher
abstraction. Although we try hard to project other dimensions such as the
why-how onto this dimension the end result is complex mess of concepts from
different domains trying to fit in a way to small space. So besides
layering we
Thanks for the book reference, I'll check it out
I guess my question mostly relates to whether or not learning more
languages than one, (perhaps when one gets to about three different
languages to some level of proficiency and deep study), causes one to form
a pre/post-linguistic awareness as
Very interesting David. I'm subscribed to the RSS feed but I don't think I
read that one yet.
I agree that largely, we can use more work on languages, but it seems that
making the programming language responsible for solving all of programming
problems is somewhat narrow.
A friend of mine,
A purpose of language is to convey how to solve problems. You need to look
for
robust solution. You must deal with that real world is inprecise. Just
transforming
problem to words causes inaccuracy. when you tell something to many
parties each of them wants to optimize something different.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that largely, we can use more work on languages, but it seems that
making the programming language responsible for solving all of programming
problems is somewhat narrow.
I believe each generation
I believe each generation of languages should address a few more of the
cross-cutting problems relative to their predecessors, else why the new
language?
Well, there are schools of thought that every problem merits a domain
specific language to solve it :D. But setting my quick response
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 08:03:54AM -0500, Tristan Slominski wrote:
A purpose of language is to convey how to solve problems. You need to
look for
robust solution. You must deal with that real world is inprecise. Just
transforming
problem to words causes inaccuracy.
I believe you imagine an actor simply demuxing or unzipping messages to
two or more other actors. But such a design does not result in the same
concurrency, consistency, or termination properties as a single actor,
which is why you cannot (correctly) treat the grouping as a single actor.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
Well... composing multiple functions does not result in the same
termination properties as a single function either, does it? Especially
when we are composing nondeterministic computations? (real question,
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Tristan Slominski
tristan.slomin...@gmail.com wrote:
stability is not necessarily the goal. Perhaps I'm more in the biomimetic
camp than I think.
Just keep in mind that the real world has quintillions of bugs. In
software, humans are probably still under a
Something on the recent discussion titled Natural Language Wins got me
thinking: a lot of people seem to have the opinion the language a person
communicates in locks them into a certain way of thinking.
I'm interested in this with respect to programming languages. I've encountered
numerous
31 matches
Mail list logo
