-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/10 08:47 , Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Gregory Collins:
>
>> * Andrew Coppin:
>>> Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this
>>> kind of dense cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation
>>> possibly explains why
* Andrew Coppin:
> On 26/10/2010 07:54 PM, Benedict Eastaugh wrote:
>> On 26 October 2010 19:29, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>>> I also don't know exactly what "discrete mathematics" actually covers.
>> Discrete mathematics is concerned with mathematical structures which
>> are discrete, rather than con
* Gregory Collins:
> * Andrew Coppin:
>> Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this
>> kind of dense cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation
>> possibly explains why normal people think Haskell is scary.
>
> That's ridiculous. You're comparing apples to oranges:
On 27 October 2010 00:21, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> Here's the table of contents of a typical 1st year discrete mathematics book,
> selected and edited:
> - algorithms on integers
> - sets
> - functions
> - relations
> - sequences
> - propositional logic
>
On 27/10/2010, at 12:55 PM, Alexander Solla wrote:
>
> Difference equations show up in Knuth's "Concrete Mathematics", his tome on
> discrete mathematics. The theory of difference equations is the discrete
> analogue to the theory of differential equations. Surprisingly, the
> continuous/di
On Oct 26, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
Number theory would probably be out
except maybe in a 2nd or 3rd year course leading to cryptography.
Number theory is one of those weird cases. They are discrete
structures, but advanced number theory uses a lot of complex analysis
an
On 27/10/2010, at 8:43 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> Already I'm feeling slightly lost. (What does the arrow denote? What's are
> "the usual logcal connectives"?)
You mentioned Information Science, so there's a good chance you know something
about Visual Basic, where they are called
AND
On 27/10/2010, at 7:29 AM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> I didn't say "people think Haskell is scary because type theory looks crazy".
> I said "people think Haskell is scary because the typical Haskeller thinks
> that type theory looks *completely normal*". As in, Haskellers seem to think
> that ever
On 26 October 2010 20:43, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
>> Propositional logic is quite a simple logic, where the building blocks
>> are atomic formulae and the usual logical connectives. An example of a
>> well-formed formula might be "P → Q". It tends to be the first system
>> taught to undergraduates,
On Oct 26, 2010, at 12:43 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Propositional logic is quite a simple logic, where the building
blocks
are atomic formulae and the usual logical connectives. An example
of a
well-formed formula might be "P → Q". It tends to be the first
system
taught to undergraduates,
On 26/10/2010 07:54 PM, Benedict Eastaugh wrote:
On 26 October 2010 19:29, Andrew Coppin wrote:
I don't even know the difference between a proposition and a predicate.
A proposition is an abstraction from sentences, the idea being that
e.g. "Snow is white", "Schnee ist weiß" and "La neige est
On 26 October 2010 19:29, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> I don't even know the difference between a proposition and a predicate.
A proposition is an abstraction from sentences, the idea being that
e.g. "Snow is white", "Schnee ist weiß" and "La neige est blanche" are
all sentences expressing the same p
On 25/10/2010 11:01 PM, Lauri Alanko wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:10:56PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Type theory doesn't actually interest me, I just wandered what the
hell all the notation means.
That sounds like an oxymoron. How could you possibly learn what the
notation "means" without
On 25/10/2010 10:36 PM, Gregory Collins wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this kind of dense
cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation possibly explains why
normal people think Haskell is scary.
That's ridiculous. You're compari
2010/10/25 Gregory Collins
> Andrew Coppin writes:
> > Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this kind of
> > dense
> > cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation possibly explains why
> > normal people think Haskell is scary.
> That's ridiculous.
That's not s
On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Type theory doesn't actually interest me, I just wandered what the
hell all the notation means.
Sorry for the double email.
I recommend "Language , Proof, and Logic", by Barwise and
Etchemendy. It doesn't go into type theory (directly).
On 10-10-25 05:10 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this kind of
dense cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation possibly
explains why normal people think Haskell is scary.
How many normal people actively stalk highly specialized aca
On Oct 25, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this
kind of dense cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation
possibly explains why normal people think Haskell is scary.
Maybe, but the notation is still clearer than mo
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:10:56PM +0100, Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Type theory doesn't actually interest me, I just wandered what the
> hell all the notation means.
That sounds like an oxymoron. How could you possibly learn what the
notation "means" without learning about the subject that the notati
Andrew Coppin writes:
> On 15/10/2010 09:42 PM, Gregory Collins wrote:
>
>> It's pretty garden-variety programming language/type theory.
>
> Hypothesis: The fact that the average Haskeller thinks that this kind of dense
> cryptic material is "pretty garden-variety" notation possibly explains why
>
On 25 October 2010 22:10, Andrew Coppin wrote:
>
> If I were to somehow obtain this book, would it actually make any sense
> whatsoever? I've read too many maths books which assume you already know
> truckloads of stuff, and utterly fail to make sense until you do. (Also,
> being a somewhat famous
On 15/10/2010 09:42 PM, Gregory Collins wrote:
Andrew Coppin writes:
Does anybody have any idea which particular dialect of pure math this
paper is speaking? (And where I can go read about it...)
It's pretty garden-variety programming language/type theory.
Hypothesis: The fact that the aver
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/10 16:36 , Andrew Coppin wrote:
> Does anybody have any idea which particular dialect of pure math this paper
> is speaking? (And where I can go read about it...)
Type theory. It makes my head spin, too, since essentially my only exposure
to
On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Andrew Coppin wrote:
Does anybody have any idea which particular dialect of pure math
this paper is speaking? (And where I can go read about it...)
It's some kind of typed logic with lambda abstraction and some notion
of witnessing, using Gertzen (I think!) sty
I think you would enjoy reading (and working) through TAPL[1] and/or
Software Foundations[2] if this interests you.
Cheers,
Thomas
[1]
http://www.amazon.com/Types-Programming-Languages-Benjamin-Pierce/dp/0262162091
[2] http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/sf/
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Andr
Andrew Coppin writes:
> Does anybody have any idea which particular dialect of pure math this
> paper is speaking? (And where I can go read about it...)
It's pretty garden-variety programming language/type theory. I can
recommend Benjamin Pierce's "Types and Programming Languages" textbook
for a
26 matches
Mail list logo
