>>5
I hate PHP, it was invented by Jews (Andi Gutmans and Zeev Suraski), just like C/C++, it is based on (both Thompson and Richie are jews). That is why I want to become a scientist, not a programmer.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-01 10:32
>>7
Insulting dessenters is pretty jewish. So I must conclude, that you're a jew.
As said great aryan philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: Mathematics would certainly have not come into existence if one had known from the beginning that there was in nature no exactly straight line, no actual circle, no absolute magnitude.
>>6
He doesn't want to be a computer scientist, he wants to be called a computer scientist. With Java and PHP he can settle for developer, skipping the 'science' bit.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-01 10:58
>>12
No. I want to be a computer scientist, but I dont believe in devious jewish concepts of God and Infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-01 10:59
Mathematicians like to reassure themselves that foundational questions are resolved by some mumbo-jumbo about "Axioms" but in reality successful mathematics requires familiarity with a large collection of "elementary" concepts and underlying linguistic and notational conventions. These are often unwritten, but are part of the training of young people in the subject. For example, an entire essay could be written on the use, implicit and explicit, of ordering and brackets in mathematical statements and equations. -- Norman J Wildberger, Associate Professor in Mathematics.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-01 11:01
Mathematics is a fanaticism of mechanistic objectivity and objectification. Genuinely "subjective" agents are not acknowledged in hard science--not because they aren't palpable, but because there is an agreement, unstated or stated, not to mention them. -- Henry Flynt and Catherine C. Hennix
The fallacy in Objectivism is its belief that absolute knowledge and final Truth are attainable through reason, and therefore that there are absolutes of right and wrong knowledge and of moral and immoral thought and action. -- Michael Shermer
>>13
Sorry, if you'd paid attention in class you'd know that a computer scientist is a person who believes in devious Jewish concepts of God and Infinity. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>>19
That is what jews want you to believe. But real Computer Scientist can and should use LISP instead of jewish math. Alas, jews force everyone to use their jewish crap.
>>17 And where is your jewish Set Theory in GPS and 3D modeling?
Set theory and type theory are the same thing, right? So when you use types in a programming language, you are using set theory
Mike Levin is a leading developer on LISP, Levin is a JEWISH name.
Enjoy your zionist scripting language fag
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-02 6:37
autism dubs
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-02 7:04
>>43
Never heard of Levin
>Lisp was first implemented by Steve Russell on an IBM 704 computer. Russell had read McCarthy's paper, and realized (to McCarthy's surprise) that the Lisp eval function could be implemented in machine code
>Macros have been invented in 1963 by Timothy Hart
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-02 7:05
>>45
Garbage collection was invented by John McCarthy around 1959 to solve problems in Lisp
>>48
The LOOP macro is a good example of the power of Lisp macros, but I'd never really call it ``useful'' or ``EXPERT LISPER BEST PRACTICES''
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 6:06
>>50
No. It is a good example of how you can abuse Lisp macros, creating unneeded complexity. LISP philosophy is all about small specialized utilities, that can be nicely combined together.
>>51 LISP philosophy is all about small specialized utilities, that can be nicely combined together.
No, it's faggot UNIX ideology. Lisp philosophy is about providing full-featured ENTERPRISE QUALITY solutions that resolve the whole spectrum of REAL problems in REAL life situations. Like LOOP macro.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 6:29
>>52
No. Unix philosophy is about KISS, meaning you segfaults often, burn in DLL-hell, need to close files manually and cant splice them like lists.
Two famous people, one from MIT and another from Berkeley (but working on Unix) once met to discuss operating system issues. The person from MIT was knowledgeable about ITS (the MIT AI Lab operating system) and had been reading the Unix sources. He was interested in how Unix solved the PC loser-ing problem. The PC loser-ing problem occurs when a user program invokes a system routine to perform a lengthy operation that might have significant state, such as IO buffers. If an interrupt occurs during the operation, the state of the user program must be saved. Because the invocation of the system routine is usually a single instruction, the PC of the user program does not adequately capture the state of the process. The system routine must either back out or press forward. The right thing is to back out and restore the user program PC to the instruction that invoked the system routine so that resumption of the user program after the interrupt, for example, re-enters the system routine. It is called ``PC loser-ing'' because the PC is being coerced into ``loser mode,'' where ``loser'' is the affectionate name for ``user'' at MIT.
The MIT guy did not see any code that handled this case and asked the New Jersey guy how the problem was handled. The New Jersey guy said that the Unix folks were aware of the problem, but the solution was for the system routine to always finish, but sometimes an error code would be returned that signaled that the system routine had failed to complete its action. A correct user program, then, had to check the error code to determine whether to simply try the system routine again. The MIT guy did not like this solution because it was not the right thing.
The New Jersey guy said that the Unix solution was right because the design philosophy of Unix was simplicity and that the right thing was too complex. Besides, programmers could easily insert this extra test and loop. The MIT guy pointed out that the implementation was simple but the interface to the functionality was complex. The New Jersey guy said that the right tradeoff has been selected in Unix-namely, implementation simplicity was more important than interface simplicity.
>>58
Unless the API changed, it will run just fine. Otherwise, it simply won't compile.
Compare this with a certain other operating system, where programs using wrong DLLs will silently continue and crash at undefined points.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-03 7:03
I see math as a tool. I see /prog/ as a collection of confused racists that reject a tool because of a perverse association to their object of hatred.
I use inductive proofs in my work to test the validity of various solutions. Completing an inductive proof shows that a statement involving a given variable 'k' holds true at a given original value of 'k' and also at every value greater than the original value of 'k'. I understand that the value of 'k' will never reach infinity due to the restrictions of our physical world, however using the abstract concept of infinity to determine that a statement will hold true at an arbitrarily high 'k' is quite useful.
>>60
0]=> perl6
perl6: error while loading shared libraries: libparrot.so.2.11.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
127]=> parrot -V
This is Parrot version 3.0.0 built for i386-linux.
Copyright (C) 2001-2011, Parrot Foundation.
This code is distributed under the terms of the Artistic License 2.0.
For more details, see the full text of the license in the LICENSE file
included in the Parrot source tree.
>>72
Yes, that's the point of induction. You solve for (k+1). As along as there are no physical constraints preventing you from increasing the number (addressable space etc..), you will be able to.
>>79 there are no physical constraints
But IRL there always physical constraints, so you cant talk about "for every x".
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 6:25
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
>>83
The problem with morons is: a moron uses a metaphor to describe some concept, like mathematicians. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But being a moron allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
In other words: you just made this shit up and never ever bothered to check if the stuff you described actually happens. Like, that there's a lot of mathematicians out there who systematically misapply some derived properties to real-world objects.
The fact that the fallacy you described turned out to so deliciously self-referential is funny as hell.
>>85
>Like, that there's a lot of mathematicians out there who systematically misapply some derived properties to real-world objects.
Can you show us "infinitesimal", math people use every day to make conclusions bout empirical world?
Name:
speech of typical math-faggot2011-02-04 7:12
The fear of infinity is a form of myopia that destroys the possibility of seeing the actual infinite, even though it in its highest form has created and sustains us, and in its secondary transfinite forms occurs all around us and even inhabits our minds. -- Georg Cantor
I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God. -- Georg Cantor
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 7:23
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John D. Barrow, Between Inner Space and Outer Space, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 88.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-04 7:24
You will become famous if you please famous people -- and all famous mathematicians like axiomatic set theory. -- Paul Lorenzen, German philosopher and mathematician, who worked in game theory, constructive logic, constructive type theory and constructive analysis.
>>86
I don't think so, bro. A model is a custom-made represention of a given subject in a certain medium. A metaphor is an existing subject used to ilustrate aspects or workings of another subject by means of substitution or implicit comparison.
>>96
``Existing'' as in self-standing, independently of what it is substituting for. A model, on the other hand, is nothing but an ``image'' of something else.
>>82
Ok, let me try to explain this to you. If I prove a generalized solution independent of physical restrictions, I can then take this rule and apply it to each instance of the problem and tailor it to specific physical constraints. Without the generalized rule, I end up having to do extraneous work throughout each instance. The abstraction is a valuable tool.
I am really starting to get irritated about all this. Why do so many of you hold these unconventional views? What are you all trying to accomplish here? What is the goal of this argument? Are you just voicing your frustration with mathematics, or is it something else?
>>112 Don't waste your time on trolls/idiots.
You mean: don't waste your time on /prog/, there's nothing interesting to see here anymore. I don't even know why I still read it.
OP has already made like 10 threads and he always fills them with out-of-context quotes. He is incapable of understanding abstract concepts and constructs and can't separate abstract things from reality, that is, he is incapable in using concepts as concepts and instead he will only accept a concept if it can exist in physical reality. (Example of concepts could be all natural numbers or real numbers - reality can only contain limited information, thus there will be a biggest number it can represent, but OP won't understand the concept of that number if it cannot be represented in reality; and real numbers don't exist at all in reality, but are very useful in modeling things with infinitely small granularity without having to get drowned in practical details of the real world, while still obtaining usable results, within certain acceptable and estimatable errors).
I've already debated with this troll (IHBT) in a few of his threads from a few months ago and concluded that it's pointless to discuss it any further.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 8:50
>>101
Mathematics is all about "semantic nuances just for the sake of misusing terminology."
>>110
>generalized solution independent of physical restrictions
So your solution is some all encompasing god-like entity, that has no physical form? Then how do you know, it applies our humble physical? So jewish! So religious!
>he will only accept a concept if it can exist in physical reality
Because this is right approach: if you cant see it and touch it, it doesnt exist. Can you see your jewish "infinite set"?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 8:52
>>114
>pointless to discuss
Because you've nothing, but ad-hominems and arguments to authority, so for you any discussion would be pointless.
>>115,116 dat quoting Oh you.
However, I think you're rather Jewish yourself, OP. You seem to be unable to realize that there are other religions and spiritual beliefs than Judaism. I'd say that mathematics is more akin to Shintoism.
>>116
I've already presented my arguments. You refuse to make the difference between concepts and reality. You think a concept is invalid if it cannot be implemented in physical reality.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 9:05
>>120 I'd say that mathematics is more akin to Shintoism.
Mathematics is a monotheistic religion, because its only god is great all encompassing Infinity. If you remove Infinity, you will've no mathematics, maybe programming or engineering, but not math. But monotheistic god theory was invented by jews. Set Theory was also invented by jews. So it is valid, to call these theories jewish.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 9:08
>>121
>You think a concept is invalid if it cannot be implemented in physical reality.
I think concepts're useless, if not supported by your subjective reality. Some if you see this "infinity" or hear voices in your head, then for you it exists. Maybe I'm just blind of deaf, but I never seen your God, nor heard its voice.
>>110 Why do so many of you hold these unconventional views?
It's only one person who does, and he is a mongoloid untermensch from Russian imageboards, whose alcoholic Russian slut mother had unprotected sex with a Jew, which produced this sorry creature who is considered Jewish by everyone except Jews and so envies and hates the Chosen People with all passion his little black godless heart can muster.
He comes here because nobody on those imageboards pays any attention to him anymore. I want to emphasize that: the imageboard contingent sees him trolling and knows better than to respond.
I think you should feel kinda bad about yourself, IHBMT.
In this day and age, there is no excuse for brushing off math. It’s tough if you’re bad at it, especially since faking competency is a lot harder in math than in the humanities. Nevertheless, brushing it off and not caring is not an acceptable defense mechanism. There’s a part of me that really wants, next time I hear someone say “I was always bad at math” to respond with “Well, I guess you’re just stupid.” It’s obviously not the correct response, but at least it’d move the average in the right direction.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 19:17
It’s really sad that in a technical age, where more and more people are engineers, scientists and computer programmers, we don’t have this deep societal appreciation for math and science. The same thing that makes people freely admit their math skills also affects college curricula. Look at the required curricula at most liberal arts colleges, which proudly proclaim the value of the “well-rounded” education that they give. There are very few math/science/computer/engineering classes, and extremely few math classes in particular. What requirements there are can always be filled by worthless classes. Then look at the curricula for technical, math/science-focused schools. They always have a substantial humanities requirement, and a totally unscientific survey of people I know has found that there tend to be few joke courses to fill those requirements, and that most students don’t take them. Which schools really give the most well-rounded education?
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 19:59
If a concept has no basis in reality (like infinity), it is still of great use to us if it can bring us to solutions that do have a basis in reality.
Name:
Anonymous2011-02-05 20:12
>>129
Anything dervived from nonsense is still nonsense.
Well, I suppose it is the other way around. Nature existed b4 we made the math. & we may even change it. Suppose tomorrow we learn we're 99% black matter? WORSE than Hawking predicts? "What Then, motherfucker?" I want to hear him say that (-:<
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 22:58
So, /g is retarded You all are stuck with me until I find that pic.
Math is just a language for describing consistent, non-contradictory structures.
Our universe is very likely one such structure and will obviously obey some geometry and logic.
What this particular troll appears to be claiming is that real numbers and infinity (whatever he means by that, infinities need to be defined to mean anything) cannot exist in reality. I tend to prefer the finite digital world view myself, as it avoids all kinds of weird stuff that would be possible otherwise, and QM and GR does hint at reality possibly being like that, however I'm always ready to be surprised by nature.
Since it's possible to construct limited forms of turing machines in this world, general branches of math also apply.
What the troll refuses to do is consider sets like the natural numbers which have infinite values. Such sets are of theoretical value and can help simplify a lot of things without actually breaking anything, instead the troll prefers to only think of limited sets of numbers, as required in practice. This will prevent him from creating more advanced abstractions and overall limit him.
For all the ad-hominem attacks, he should instead try to do some constructive criticism if he so hates math, such as defining his own systems and publishing them so we can look at them and compare them with modern math.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:15
O Rly?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:21
>>140
and if knowing about Fractals makes me an oldfag, so be it. They are badass.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:37
>>146
Sorry, but your mandelbrot is as useless as the jew, who concieved it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:37
Mandelbrot was born in Warsaw into a Jewish family from Lithuania.
Fractals - a jewish pseudoscience, consisting of abstraction and casuistry.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:39
>>144
If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John D. Barrow, Between Inner Space and Outer Space, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 88.
Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. [Atheism], for example, would be a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified. -- H. Eves, Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:41
>>144 Since it's possible to construct limited forms of turing machines in this world, general branches of math also apply.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -- Nikola Tesla
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
There are two main problems with mathematics:
* The mathematical abstraction may not be suitable with respect to all real-world applications that are based on it. There are occasions where people use their real-world knowledge but run into an error because the abstraction is not applicable. Such cases can pose serious problems to users because the source of the error is not obvious to them. Some authors even discourage the use of abstractions for this reason.
* The abstraction may be too remote or abstract, so that users have to invest too much effort into translating the abstraction into their world. In this case, the abstraction does not help users. Instead, it forms an obstacle to them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:48
>>144 Such sets are of jewish value...
That is why!
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-18 23:54
>>144 For all the ad-hominem attacks, he should instead try to do some constructive criticism if he so hates math, such as defining his own systems and publishing them so we can look at them and compare them with modern math.
I'm not a crank to attempt inventing personal mathematics, programing an operating system or constructing a nucklear bomb in garage. Such things require years of works, good financing and workforce.
Scheme or Haskell, good sirs? For practical application? Learning functional programming?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:00
>>154
Haskell is just seems cumbersome. Now, you could say the same thing about lisp/scheme; but once you get going with lisp/emacs you really start to flow and the abstract syntax tree is a lot easier to follow.
Haskell just seems like something for the university, something for the math department. I dont know how these guys are going to start banging out web applications with this.
http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/getting-started.html
>It is sometimes better to leave at least some parentheses in place, even when Haskell allows us to omit them. Complex expressions that rely completely on operator precedence are notorious sources of bugs. A compiler and a human can easily end up with different notions of what even a short, parenthesis-free expression is supposed to do. There is no need to remember all of the precedence and associativity rules numbers: it is simpler to add parentheses if you are unsure.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:03
Haskellers of all levels are sometimes frustrated by not being able to understand the clever code produced by more advanced Haskellers. They see that the suggested solutions work, but either they can't see how, or they wouldn't have been able to come up with that kind of solution themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:22
Obtaining benefit from the type system involves attention on the part of the programmer and willingness to make good use of the facilities provided by the language. A complex program that encodes all its data structures as lists will not get much help from the compiler. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Type systems offer numerous "tricks" for encoding information. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Type systems support the programming process by enforcing disciplined programming. -- Benjamin C. Pierce
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:31
So which one is it?
Scheme or Haskell?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:35
>>159
And I posted the first question (Haskell or Scheme) not to debate which one is the better language. You can take the R5RS standard/Racket or the Haskell Prime standard and pump out something nice. I'm talking about how intuitive each one is. Because I like Scheme/Racket (I personally prefer the Racket dialect of Scheme because it supports modules and has much more libraries) because its intuitive. You think of a solution and the answer just comes to you. Haskell's type system, although wonderfully thought out, seems to force thinking into an overly linear direction while still ending up with having the same wonderfully creative tools as Racket. So what do? I want to learn Haskell to learn Math but I already know Racket and... I'm sorry for quoting a fanatical Mac, jewish murderer of anuses, but it just works.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:39
>>160 I'm talking about how intuitive static typing
/0
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:43
Can a religion be intuitive?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:44
>>161
I said that Racket is more intuitive as a language. Haskell's type system bogs shit down. I mean, its like half the language. I might still spend a week or so to learn it well enough so that I can delve into it and master it by writing non-trivial shit but it took me like three days to learn Scheme, one of them just spent on pounding recursion/tail-recursion/continuations into my head. That's all.
>>163
Almost every piece of set theory that I've tried to define in Haskell comes out looking very much like the original. This closeness allows me to work in mathematics, and then translate things to Haskell easily without worrying about having made mistakes in the translation.
Often mathematicians don't realise that they are using datastructures all the time. But they are. For example a group is a set equipped with functions to perform multiplication and inversion as well as a singled out element, the identitiy. Haskell makes it very easy to work with structures that are tuples of objects like this. It's also very easy to build one datastructure out of another and even specify rules about datastructures. For example a matrix is a two-dimensional array of objects. But if the objects form a ring then so does the matrix. This kind of statement is easy to express in Haskell making it well suited to working with algebraic structures. If you've defined formal power series over a ring and you've defined the ring of polynomials over another ring it's trivial to build the ring of power series over polynomials over the integers, say.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:52
>>167
I think, that is enough to label Haskell as a mathematical language. And use this association in pejorative sense. As most people hate math, they'll automatically hate haskell.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:53
Hm. All very good points. I guess I'll sleep on it. Maybe, just maybe I'll learn Haskell. We'll see.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:55
Associating math with evil jews is another way to instill hatred for it, as jews love math and definitely did some evil to the majority of people.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:56
>>170
Math is great and jews are okay. religious jews are just total inbred fucks, though. I'm jewish by heritage and I can tell you that religious jews are most likely all going to hell if they're dying. And I'm an atheist but if there's a hell, they're going there.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:57
Yeah. I think I'll try learning Haskell.
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 21:58
Anyway, since I'm decided on spending Spring Break on learning Haskell and getting through this book I have on it, is optimizing Haskell really the black art I heard it was?
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
For ancient greeks Earth was an infinite flat plane with parallel lines on it. Today every child knows that Earth is round, but some "god chosen" jews still force belief in parallel infinite long lines. Of course, jews would say, that without infinity there is no mathematics, but why do we need this jewish tendency toward abstraction and casuistry anyway? Can you show us practical usefulness of your deceptive religious theories, jews? Can you show us "Infinity"?
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-19 22:43
>>180
Jews aren't human, because they call us humans, goyim. So killing a jew is more like killing an animal, a pig (that is why jews don't eat pigs). BTW, PETA consists mostly of jews.
I've made infinite set inside what you deemed a "NP-C" problem and claimed you refused to program it. Maybe if you got off your dead ass you could find an infinite set yourself? :) :D
Name:
Anonymous2011-04-21 14:32
Complaining that others found math! Go become An Hero.