I am a mathematician who makes things and uses math to understand how the code executes. Execution is not an implementation detail to me.
I am a mathematician who makes things and uses math to understand how the code executes. Execution is not an implementation detail to me.
I think it’s weird as fuck that you are telling me what I am.
Category theory and type theory don't fit cleanly with assembly language (the implementation detail).
Additionally at the very fundamentals of mathematical CS: the Church–Turing thesis doesn't describe anything about the real world. It says that the implementation of a true lambda machine vs. a turing machine are essentially the same thing, the thesis does not describe how it's basically impossible or extremely hard to build a true lambda machine.
I'm just saying that a big portion of the math doesn't describe the real world implementation details.
As I said the Church side of the theory doesn't have a real world machine equivalent. We have machines that move things and save things but we don't have a physical machine that represents the concept of a function call. What we instead have is a Turing machine that emulates a function call, not a true simulation of it.