Satori is pretty weird

I achieved satori, and it's kind of fucked up. Everything is a programming problem. Look at a piece of toast and you'll see an endomorphism on the domain of bread. Look at a chair and you'll see a recursive descent parser. Look at a dog taking a shit and you'll see a novel set of inductive laws for reasoning about infix notation.

I mean, I did swimmingly at the program I was working on, but it would be nice to brush my teeth without having to check my floss for null.

It's not fun if you write unrelated things put together with technical terms. It's funny if there is a relation. Here, there's none, therefore your post doesn't even classify as `on-topic'.

...the words you're throwing around don't even *act* as a (reverse) analogy.
Try harder.

good concept but execution is off.  2/10

Somebody fix this up and re-post

I was trying to talk like a Haskell programmer. Don't they just throw random words around? I'm pretty sure nothing they say actually means stuff.

>>6
I am a suit who doesn't believe that abstract bullshite like math is a part of programming, I just copypaste code snippets from MS database without understanding them.
Sure thing.

>>6
There should be a game like buzzword bingo for haskell. It would contain words like functoid, comonoidal and whatever else they spout.

ffffff

>>8
Pullback of a epimorphic product map! :D

>>6

Go back to your JavaSchool and save up for a copy of TAOCP or Concrete Mathematics, will you?

>>10
Pullback of a ...
Oh hohoho! We all know what that means!

>>12
I hope so. Seeing as /prog/ is devoted chiefly to toy languages, people should know their category theory.

Satori is not weird, she is just misunderstood

>>13
>le pedophile sage

YOU HAVE BEEN VISITED BY LE GREEN SAD NEGRO FROGE OF SADDNESS
REPOST THIS IN 100`000 threads or be a frog!

`
           ████████     ██████       
         █░░░░░░░░██ ██░░░░░░█      
        █░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░█     
       █░░░░░░░███░░░█░░░░░░░░░█    
       █░░░░███░░░███░█░░░████░█    
      █░░░██░░░░░░░░███░██░░░░██    
     █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░███ 
    █░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░░░████░░█
    █░░░░░░░░░█████░░░████░░██░░██░░█
   ██░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░███
  █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░█████████
 █░░░░░░░░░░█████ ████   ████ █████   █
 █░░░░░░░░░░█     █ ███  █    ███ █   █
█░░░░░░░░░░░░█   ████ ████   ██ ██████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░████████░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░█░░░░░░██ 
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░███████  
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░█ 
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░░░░░░█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██
░░░░░░░░░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███████████████▒▒█
░░░░░░░░░█▒▒███████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
░░░░░░░░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█████████████████
░░░░░░░░░░████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████████████████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█    
██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██     
▓██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██       
▓▓▓███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█         
▓▓▓▓▓▓███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██          
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███████████████▓▓█         
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██       
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█       
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█

ITT math-ignorant fuckwits who don't realize that it's not Haskell-idiots who are spewing math-buzzwords (they are just as ignorant of math as you, after all), but mathematicians. Here's a taste of what real abstruse math-nonsense looks like (without any mention of Haskell):
http://math.andrej.com/2014/01/13/univalent-foundations-subsume-classical-mathematics/#comments

And Haskell has nothing whatsoever to do with math, it's just a glorified C with preprocessor:
http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional

Every topological bundle whose fibers are non-empty has a continuous global section.
Fuck, why didn't I think of that?

>>17
Haskell has nothing whatsoever to do with math
Ever heard of type theory?

>>19
He links to a paper by a homotopy type thoery guy, so assumedly he does.

>>17
Your second link was a tongue in cheek response by master Haskell programmer Conal Eliott amidst discussions on what makes a language purely functional. It's not a serious argument, just humorous and playful nudge at some colleagues to stop wasting their time.

However I will add that the homotopy type theory is a brand new take on all of mathematics coming from three or four people who were``purely functional'' (LOL) Haskell, and Agda etc. programmers, not really mathematicians; the foundational book of the field is hosted on github.

Outside of the Haskell community as it appears on reddit, hacker news, and the blogs of the people who discovered this new take on all of mathematics I don't think the world acknowledges their existence, and I certainly don't think any real mathematicians care too much about what they do.

I'll let you judge for yourself whether to take them any more seriously than real programmers (i.e. Common Lisp programmers) take the functional programming trendroids.

As a social commentary, compare e.g. Gerald J Sussman, a real mathematician and master programmer, and his research interests to the homotopy and Haskell people. The latter are obsessed with restricting your programs to match some sick paedophilic notion of ``purity'' in order to be able to analyze them, the former is obsessed with crafting useful programs to analyze the real world.

Alas

>>20
real programmers
Common Lisp
top lel

>>21
No, not ``top lel''. Top satori.

>>19
Haskell type system is a textbook-level simplistic Fomega rig, read your TAPL, dammit! If you want real type-theory-heavy languages, look at ATS, Agda and Epigram. Although they are all evidence that a truly advanced type system is nigh useless in practice and Haskell with its mediocre type-unsafe nearly imperative paradigm actually hits a good balance as far as "getting shit done" goes. And the constant tweaking of the GHC to make it more performant, sugary and mass-appealing help make Hackage overflow with code and blogs overflow with "comonoidiodic groupoids" which impress you so much. Not some advanced mathematic rigor or state-of-the-art type system. For Spock's sake, the language doesn't even have proper exceptions, or sum types, or product types, or guaranteed termination.

>>23
Who the fuck are you quoting?

>>20
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure that the consensus in research mathematics is that glorified high school calculus applied mathematicians like Sussman rank below algebraists like Voevodsky. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about.

On that matter, thinking that just because you don't understand either and they seem to have a couple of terms in common, Haskell and HoTT are the same, sounds like a pretty bad case of Dunning-Kruger to me.

>>25
I clearly didn't say HoTT and Haskell are the same. I said the HoTT people are Haskell and Agda programmers.

Wait, wasn't HoTT pseudoscientific bullshit, a CS/maths breed of torsion field theory? Last time I looked the dude was, like, I'm rewriting the entire mathematics with this lol. Or are you guys trolling everyone with it?

install BSD/Gentoo

>>27
It's not bullshit. There are useful results.

But the claim that it's the foundation for all of mathematics, that's laughable. I don't think people understand what the foundations for all of mathematics means, how many approaches there have been, their failures, the paradoxes, the problems and the endless philosophical debates (formalism vs logicism etc. etc.).

I think any claims to have found a foundation for all of mathematics is very optimistic thinking on the part of the people who make the claims.

In this case I was pointing out that perhaps the same qualitative type of enthusiasm is shared between Haskell programmers for their programming language and homotopy type theory for their mathematics language, given that its mostly the same people, same web based social circles etc.

And for us expert programmers, that should be all the warning signs we need.

>>29
What? Who are you quoting?

>>32
Not you

>>31
Fuck you !

>>31
>le pedophile sage

>>26
Most of the core people are not programmers at all. Pretty much everyone doing categorical logic nowadays is involved with HoTT to some extent; the rest of the mathematical establishment simply doesn't show much interest because they never found things on that level of abstraction interesting in their own right to begin with and ZFC is good enough for their purposes that they never need to think about it at all.

Don't talk to me.

hi

>>34
WHO ARE YOU QUOTING????

>>37
>people cannot write a paragraph of text.
>This isn't normal.
>I never seen such thing on /g/.

>>38
who are you le quoting

i am a raging homosexual

>>39
Is this new shit-tier meme like Install GNU/Autism?

>>41
e/v/in tier meme, /v/roski!
Install le /v/entoo xD

PRIME NUMBER GET

>>43
43 isn't a prime number shithead, it's a multiple of 21.5 and 2.

>>44
prime
Shalom!