/prog/ - A bold questions you refuse to answer.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 11:20

Is the language of set theory a good language for describing the world?

Are there sets in reality?

Why sets don't have dynamic state, like everything in programming has?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 11:22

>>2-1000 YHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 11:29

>>2
Are you jew?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 11:40

>>3
Are you autistic?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 13:16

>>4
If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then the AJAX might be exactly what you've not been looking for!

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 13:20

>>1
Google "Viable Systems Model".

Set Theory is obviously not enough by itself. You need a "framework" for that, and Cybernetics is a good one.

inb4: some fag that confuses cybernetics with robotics and AI.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 13:37

>>6
inb4: some fag that confuses cybernetics with robotics and AI.

Me! me! It'll be me! Now what?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 13:50

>>6
Set Theory is obviously not enough by itself. You need a "framework" for that
Why?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 13:57

>>7
Now i will tell you that cybernetics has more to do with biology and social studies than robotics.

>>8
Because you need one cybernetic concept that "glues all together". Read about "autopoiesis" and the "viable system model" i told you before.

(There's even some videos on Youtube about the Viable Systems Model.)

NOTE: The inventor of 'autopoiesis' has some reservations about using it outside the field of biology. Neverthless, some successful sociologists (Niklaus Luhmann) have applied the autopoiesis concept for explaining, for example, the behavior of mass media in society.

Name: VIPPER 2011-03-10 14:02

What is this "set theory" everyone keeps talking about? Is it the new pokemon?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 14:11

>>10
It's related to Haskell
http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2007/02/haskell-and-set-theory.html

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 14:13

>>11
So, he mena haskal?

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 14:27

>>12
Who knows.

-----------------------------------

What i'm saying is: Cybernetics gives you a framework for modelling "reality" because it considers the relations of the components of a dynamic system.

In Cybernetics, the main subject is the COMPLEXITY (could that be a good synonim for arity?). How we handle it. The more dynamic a system is, then there are more possible states. How we deal with this complexity is the main issue.

The important thing is: What do we left outside our simulation to be able to cope with the complexity of the problem? And of course, why?

This means looking at the problem in a more holistic way.

OP talked about representing the reality and correctly asked about the dynamism. We need to "go up" a little and look the problem from that position to understand it's dynamism.

Name: VIPPER 2011-03-10 14:40

>>11
I dont know haskell, should i learn it?
I also recently tried came across set theory on wikipedia, but it didnt help me much?

I just dont get what all the hype about this is recently on /prog/.
Yes i have taken the autism factor into consideration.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 14:58

>>14
recently
If anything the haskal discussions have died down recently. We go weeks without seeing a single nomad.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 15:10

>>15
We go weeks without seeing a single nomad.
And let's keep it that way :)

Name: VIPPER 2011-03-10 15:19

>>15
No i meant the set stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 15:22

>>15
We go weeks without seeing a single nomad.
return x >>= f . flip fmap $ reverse . loeb . ((***) =<<)

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-10 15:27

>>18
fuck you

Name: >>19 2011-03-10 15:31

FUCK I ACCIDENTALLY BUMPED THIS FUCKING THREAD. FUCK.

Requesting sagetank.