eastWestMath

Did you not look at the examples section, the documentation, the tutorial, or notice that there's a several-hundred page book on software development in Idris? There's no shortage of code examples.

Yeah I feel like it's turning AI into a bit of a joke amongst other theoretical computer scientists.

Why would Gawker pay advertisers?

Why not categorical quantum mechanics?

If you had ever done any reading about american slavery, you'd know that Django sugarcoated it. Rape was common, most new families were separated, mandingo fighting existed as a hobby, corporal punishment was handed out with slight provocation.

To be honest, I'm shocked that you're willing to make these sorts of comments with your name attached to your account. You don't think this would make your employer uncomfortable?

>At this point, tutorials use examples like "like flatMap and Maybe in other languages!" which is even more confusing. Why do I need a monad then, if there are similar constructs in other languages that don't need the understanding of monad? Why the complexity? What do I get from monads?

Monads are a mathematical concept, like a ring. "Maybe" is a monad in whatever language you use it in, just like integers are a ring in whatever language you use them in. Pointing out that complex numbers, rational numbers, nxn matrices are all examples of rings and wrapping everything up into a type class doesn't add to the complexity of the language.

Exactly, you need to treat those jerk-offs advocating for feudalism with respect.

Do you only value white people's well being? Otherwise, if you actually knew anything about the history of slavery you'd have never had that thought. People aren't actually exaggerating about generational PTSD - splitting up over half of new families, corporal punishment, sexual abuse, the list goes on.

That topic has actually been researched, the slave states had less developed economies than the northern states. For the same reason all feudal/slave states have underdeveloped economies.

Of course, some people in this thread are probably ready to laud Hitler's economic acumen, while ignoring his economic gains were due to public spending building a war machine and taking Jewish people's stuff.

But it's not similarly interesting, linear and intuitionistic logic are. Finitism is just kind of stupid.

"Stampede away from the mac" is a complete overstatement, Apple still makes the most profits of any computer manufacturer.

But ultrafinitism isn't actually interesting as a mathematical theory. As the previous poster said, its appeal lies in its "realness". Intuitionistic and linear logic are substantially more interesting.

Well yes, Platonism is true if you presuppose that Platonism is true.

>The belief that Church defined computation rigorously when he solved the Entschidungsproblem using the lambda calculus rather than just made an imprecise conjecture is a common mistake and historical revisionism.

Ok I'm out, you do you man.

In other words:

http://i.imgur.com/pLOrJ.jpg

The lambda calculus preceded Turing machines, in fact Turing worked on the lambda calculus before he published his work on Turing machines. Where on Earth did you pick up this rubbish?

Computation is an entirely abstract thing. Nowhere does the definition of Turing machines or the lambda calculus makes any reference to actual physical things.

>In order to make these arguments less religious, I think it would be worthwhile to adopt Turing's mathematical philosophy, which called for adopting mathematical foundations on an ad-hoc basis (or even no foundation at all). In other words, choose whatever foundation (if any) for the task at hand. This would make it easier to argue that, say, type theory is a more convenient core for proof checkers.

I think you're misrepresenting the category theorists, they're usually the ones arguing for choosing whatever foundation is convenient for a given domain. A lot of the time, this is a type theoretic foundation because a lot of modern mathematics is about pretending you have function types when you don't actually have function types in your category (such as differential geometry) or that all you care about is a "core" set of operations and the rest of the framework you're working in simply gets in the way (such as Hilbert spaces vs. compact closed dagger categories in categorical quantum mechanics). And if you know already knew dependent type theory then synthetic homotopy theory is easier than classical homotopy theory, some proofs in homotopy theory can take several lectures to present and even then it will still be pretty hard to see why they hold.

It's just weird to see people thing the category theorists are the one being impractical compared to the set theorists like Friedman. I can't think of a categorical logician who doesn't have an active line of research outside of logic; usually in topology, computability, quantum mechanics, or algebraic geometry. They're not just logicians but active researchers in computer science, physics and mathematics, logic is a powerful tool and should be applied in these fields.

Someone with a failing business is going to be the prime suspect when it burns down, a researcher whose project appears to be going nowhere will be the prime suspect when their samples are sabotaged. It's fairly straight-forward reasoning.

It's a pretty bizarre misuse of the term. The obvious person to suspect in this situation is the person who has the most to benefit; for example, it's not victim-blaming to suspect a homeowner in an arson case when they got a large insurance payout, it's choosing the obvious suspect. Graduate students'/post-docs whose research is going nowhere have done all sorts of stupid shit in the past (like sabotage another student's work for no apparent reason).

It's pretty crazy. I'm a Canadian and went to public schools through school, now I'm doing my PhD. When I'm at summer schools or conferences with Americans, it's like half of those students had only ever interacted with other people in gifted programs at private schools.

Have you never used a functional language?

I've had some experiences where it really helped. My supervisor uses a teaching stack based VM for his compilers class - it is slow as all hell but very simple, easy to get running, and it gives very good debugging info. Similarly, I can see the value in a simplified graphics API that let's you focus on the basic theory, or a simplified language with Hoare logic for writing loop invariants in an algorithms class.

Well, evaluation in these languages is more transparent. The syntax is basically the lambda calculus, so once you've actually learned the language it makes a huge difference. I'd try reading up on "referential transparency".

Well they're both the lambda calculus, Lisp just had parentheses.

Or maybe people could just become familiar with ML-style languages? The basic syntax shouldn't take more than an hour or two to pick up.

People are excited by it, and managed to deal with prime-ageddon without any major headaches (it's like basic regex search and there's even an update tool, come on).

It's not at 1.0, there's no promise about preserving backwards compatibility at this point.

From the article:

>Just five days in, the MacBook Pro models had already hit almost 80% of combined 2015 and 2016 MacBook sales – and look set to exceed 18 months of sales in the first week.

So Apple is having incredible sales numbers for Apple, not compared to some smaller manufacturers.

Did you say you wanted an album specifically? I've never had any trouble with saying "play the album X".