>>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.