<div><div dir="ltr"> <div> <div>Some on this list may find this article interesting:<br><br><a href="http://dunkels.com/adam/dunkels06runtime.pdf">http://dunkels.com/adam/dunkels06runtime.pdf</a><br><br> </div>concerning power consumption on tiny compute nodes.<br><br> </div>david<br> </div></div>
Here's a semipractical use case: add 1 to the display in each of a dynamic collection of calculators (math domain widgets). What can do this as end-user programming? It's fairly obvious that a textual language can do this. Can any graphical ones? Can something like lively kernel do this by demonstration? How about excel? With a dynamic collection? What will work on android jelly bean? I'm away from my desktop right now.
Looking for systems like this I found app-inventor activity starter on my phone. Has anyone tried this?
On Apr 21, 2013 12:14 AM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I believe the key to this is to create domain widgets. I am not sure if this needs to be something like etoys, maybe a combination between forth and etoys. I believe collections can make for interesting domain widgets. I have only programmed systems with collections of text. What systems work on collections of domain widgets?
On Apr 21, 2013 12:02 AM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:Yeah, you're right. The theory is coming up with a syntax free language. Can you?
On Apr 21, 2013 12:00 AM, "David Barbour" <dmbarbour <at> gmail.com> wrote:How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle.On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed.
On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?
On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <dmbarbour <at> gmail.com> wrote:only in practiceOn Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <forman.simon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:On 4/20/13, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting
> that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?
> Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that
> isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.
Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary
Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth
Functors":
"Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the
columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are
equivalent.
Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).
Name Logic Sets BA
Alternation a∨b a∪b ab
Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b
Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)
Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))
___
NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)
___
Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)
Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)
(Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)
Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also.
I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set
stands for the set of everything, no?
Cheers,
~Simon
"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div> <p dir="ltr">Here's a semipractical use case: add 1 to the display in each of a dynamic collection of calculators (math domain widgets). What can do this as end-user programming? It's fairly obvious that a textual language can do this. Can any graphical ones? Can something like lively kernel do this by demonstration? How about excel? With a dynamic collection? What will work on android jelly bean? I'm away from my desktop right now.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 21, 2013 12:22 AM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@...">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote"> <p dir="ltr">Looking for systems like this I found app-inventor activity starter on my phone. Has anyone tried this?</p> <div class="elided-text"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 21, 2013 12:14 AM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I believe the key to this is to create domain widgets. I am not sure if this needs to be something like etoys, maybe a combination between forth and etoys. I believe collections can make for interesting domain widgets. I have only programmed systems with collections of text. What systems work on collections of domain widgets? </p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 21, 2013 12:02 AM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Yeah, you're right. The theory is coming up with a syntax free language. Can you?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 21, 2013 12:00 AM, "David Barbour" <<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr">How is that a theory? Sounds like a design principle.</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM, John Carlson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr">only in practice</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.</p> <div><div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <<a href="mailto:forman.simon@..." target="_blank">forman.simon@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br> > Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting<br> > that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?<br> > Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that<br> > isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.<br><br> Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary<br> Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth<br> Functors":<br><br> "Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the<br> columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are<br> equivalent.<br><br> Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).<br><br> Name Logic Sets BA<br><br> Alternation a∨b a∪b ab<br> Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b<br> Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)<br> Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))<br> ___<br> NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)<br> ___<br> Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)<br><br> Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)<br><br> (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)<br><br> Check out <a href="http://www.markability.net/sets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.markability.net/sets.htm</a> also.<br><br><br> I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set<br> stands for the set of everything, no?<br><br> Cheers,<br> ~Simon<br><br><br><br><br><br> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of<br> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that<br> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the<br> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than<br> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."<br> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"<br> _______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div>
If there truly is a universal language, is it a systems language? A logic language can describe hardware. What about things like pointers? Have they come up with self-referential logic?
I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?
On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <dmbarbour <at> gmail.com> wrote:only in practiceOn Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <forman.simon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:On 4/20/13, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting
> that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?
> Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that
> isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.
Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary
Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth
Functors":
"Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the
columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are
equivalent.
Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).
Name Logic Sets BA
Alternation a∨b a∪b ab
Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b
Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)
Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))
___
NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)
___
Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)
Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)
(Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)
Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also.
I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set
stands for the set of everything, no?
Cheers,
~Simon
"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div> <p dir="ltr">If there truly is a universal language, is it a systems language? A logic language can describe hardware. What about things like pointers? Have they come up with self-referential logic?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@...">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr">only in practice</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.</p> <div><div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <<a href="mailto:forman.simon@..." target="_blank">forman.simon@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br> > Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting<br> > that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?<br> > Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that<br> > isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.<br><br> Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary<br> Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth<br> Functors":<br><br> "Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the<br> columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are<br> equivalent.<br><br> Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).<br><br> Name Logic Sets BA<br><br> Alternation a∨b a∪b ab<br> Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b<br> Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)<br> Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))<br> ___<br> NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)<br> ___<br> Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)<br><br> Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)<br><br> (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)<br><br> Check out <a href="http://www.markability.net/sets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.markability.net/sets.htm</a> also.<br><br><br> I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set<br> stands for the set of everything, no?<br><br> Cheers,<br> ~Simon<br><br><br><br><br><br> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of<br> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that<br> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the<br> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than<br> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."<br> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"<br> _______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div>
Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed.
I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?
On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <dmbarbour <at> gmail.com> wrote:only in practiceOn Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <forman.simon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:On 4/20/13, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting
> that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?
> Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that
> isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.
Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary
Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth
Functors":
"Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the
columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are
equivalent.
Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).
Name Logic Sets BA
Alternation a∨b a∪b ab
Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b
Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)
Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))
___
NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)
___
Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)
Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)
(Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)
Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also.
I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set
stands for the set of everything, no?
Cheers,
~Simon
"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div> <p dir="ltr">Here's my theory: reduce arguing with the compiler to minimum. This means reducing programmers' syntax errors. Only add syntax to reduce errors (the famous FORTRAN do loop error). The syntax that creates errors should be removed.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:18 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@...">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr">only in practice</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.</p> <div><div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <<a href="mailto:forman.simon@..." target="_blank">forman.simon@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br> > Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting<br> > that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?<br> > Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that<br> > isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.<br><br> Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary<br> Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth<br> Functors":<br><br> "Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the<br> columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are<br> equivalent.<br><br> Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).<br><br> Name Logic Sets BA<br><br> Alternation a∨b a∪b ab<br> Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b<br> Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)<br> Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))<br> ___<br> NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)<br> ___<br> Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)<br><br> Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)<br><br> (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)<br><br> Check out <a href="http://www.markability.net/sets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.markability.net/sets.htm</a> also.<br><br><br> I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set<br> stands for the set of everything, no?<br><br> Cheers,<br> ~Simon<br><br><br><br><br><br> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of<br> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that<br> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the<br> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than<br> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."<br> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"<br> _______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div>
I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?
Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <dmbarbour <at> gmail.com> wrote:only in practiceOn Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.
On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <yottzumm <at> gmail.com> wrote:I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.
On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <forman.simon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:On 4/20/13, John Carlson <yottzumm-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting
> that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?
> Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that
> isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.
Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary
Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth
Functors":
"Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the
columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are
equivalent.
Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).
Name Logic Sets BA
Alternation a∨b a∪b ab
Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b
Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)
Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))
___
NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)
___
Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)
Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)
(Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)
Check out http://www.markability.net/sets.htm also.
I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set
stands for the set of everything, no?
Cheers,
~Simon
"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div> <p dir="ltr">I think it's better to work from examples, ala JUnit and end-user programming than come up with a theory that solves nothing. One can compare EGGG to GDL in scope and expressiveness. One interesting part of gaming is arguing about rules. What computer systems do that?</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 11:09 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@...">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Practice or practical? Maybe there's space for practical theory, instead of relying on things that don't exist. Why do we distinguish practice from theory? Seems like a fallacy there.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:51 PM, "David Barbour" <<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr">only in practice</div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM, John Carlson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">Take my word for it, theory comes down to Monday Night Football on ESPN.</p> <div><div> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 10:13 PM, "John Carlson" <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm <at> gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <p dir="ltr">I think that concepts in some sense transcend the universe. Are there more digits in pi than there are atoms in the universe? I guess we are asking if there are transcendental volumes which are bigger or more complex than the universe. If the universe contains the transcendental as symbols then how many transcendental symbols are there? I think you still run into Russell's Paradox.</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 20, 2013 9:15 PM, "Simon Forman" <<a href="mailto:forman.simon@..." target="_blank">forman.simon@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> On 4/20/13, John Carlson <<a href="mailto:yottzumm@..." target="_blank">yottzumm@...</a>> wrote:<br> > Do you need one symbol for the number infinity and another for denoting<br> > that a set is inifinite? Or do you just reason about the size of the set?<br> > Is there a difference between a set that is countably infinite and one that<br> > isn't countable? I barely know Russell's paradox... you're ahead of me.<br><br> Well, for what it's worth, quoting from Meguire's 2007 "Boundary<br> Algebra: A Simple Notation for Boolean Algebra and the Truth<br> Functors":<br><br> "Let U be the universal set, a,b∈U, and ∅ be the null set. Then the<br> columns headed by “Sets” show how the algebra of sets and the pa are<br> equivalent.<br><br> Table 4-2. The 10 Nontrivial Binary Connectives (Functors).<br><br> Name Logic Sets BA<br><br> Alternation a∨b a∪b ab<br> Conditional a→b a⊆b (a)b<br> Converse a←b a⊇b a(b)<br> Conjunction a∧b a∩b ((a)(b))<br> ___<br> NOR a↓b a∪b (ab)<br> ___<br> Sheffer stroke a|b a∩b (a)(b)<br><br> Biconditional a↔b a⊆b⊆a (((a)b)(a(b))) -or- ((a)(b))(ab)<br><br> (Apologies if the Unicode characters got mangled!)<br><br> Check out <a href="http://www.markability.net/sets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.markability.net/sets.htm</a> also.<br><br><br> I don't know much about set theory but I think the "Universal" set<br> stands for the set of everything, no?<br><br> Cheers,<br> ~Simon<br><br><br><br><br><br> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of<br> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that<br> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the<br> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than<br> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."<br> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"<br> _______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div>
How do these handle infinite sets?
John
This might be of interest. Over the last century a small group of
people, working largely independently and in isolation, have
discovered and refined an Universal Language.
This is a logic-symbolic notation, not a spoken language (i.e. not
like Esperanto), that captures and expresses the essence of logical
reasoning in a direct and unmistakable way.
The rules of logical reasoning (and Set Theory, etc.) expressed in the
Universal Language admit of a decision procedure that is of
unprecedented simplicity and power.
I think of it as the alphabet of thought.
I'm still gathering threads and learning but I've compiled a few links
and a bit of history:
C. S. Pierce, Existential Graphs, circa 1890
Spencer-Brown, "Laws of Form"
Bricken, http://iconicmath.com/
Shroup, http://www.lawsofform.org/
Burnett-Stuart, http://www.markability.net/
One example that should indicate why I am excited about it: Logical
statements that are equivalent under De Morgan's are identical in the
notation. De Morgan's "laws" are, in effect, a kind of side effect of
notational encumbrance.
Also, "modus ponens" and "modus tellens" have identical expression.
Also, any expression in the notation is a schematic for a logic gate
circuit that computes the logical value of the expression.
It goes on and on.
Warm regards,
~Simon
"The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of
an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that
restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the
crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than
like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."
--H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div> <p dir="ltr">How do these handle infinite sets?</p> <p dir="ltr">John</p> <div class="gmail_quote">On Apr 19, 2013 11:47 AM, "Simon Forman" <<a href="mailto:forman.simon@...">forman.simon@...</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> This might be of interest. Over the last century a small group of<br> people, working largely independently and in isolation, have<br> discovered and refined an Universal Language.<br><br> This is a logic-symbolic notation, not a spoken language (i.e. not<br> like Esperanto), that captures and expresses the essence of logical<br> reasoning in a direct and unmistakable way.<br><br> The rules of logical reasoning (and Set Theory, etc.) expressed in the<br> Universal Language admit of a decision procedure that is of<br> unprecedented simplicity and power.<br><br> I think of it as the alphabet of thought.<br><br> I'm still gathering threads and learning but I've compiled a few links<br> and a bit of history:<br><br> C. S. Pierce, Existential Graphs, circa 1890<br><br> Spencer-Brown, "Laws of Form"<br><br> Bricken, <a href="http://iconicmath.com/" target="_blank">http://iconicmath.com/</a><br><br> Shroup, <a href="http://www.lawsofform.org/" target="_blank">http://www.lawsofform.org/</a><br><br> Burnett-Stuart, <a href="http://www.markability.net/" target="_blank">http://www.markability.net/</a><br><br><br> One example that should indicate why I am excited about it: Logical<br> statements that are equivalent under De Morgan's are identical in the<br> notation. De Morgan's "laws" are, in effect, a kind of side effect of<br> notational encumbrance.<br><br> Also, "modus ponens" and "modus tellens" have identical expression.<br> Also, any expression in the notation is a schematic for a logic gate<br> circuit that computes the logical value of the expression.<br><br> It goes on and on.<br><br> Warm regards,<br> ~Simon<br><br><br> "The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of<br> an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that<br> restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the<br> crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than<br> like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity."<br> --H. P. Wells, "A Short History of the World"<br> _______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br> </blockquote> </div> </div>
I wanted to send this message out after the final status report, but since that's indefinitely delayed (keep going!) I'm just going to do it now. Easy question: has keeping this dialogue open been useful to the folks at VPRI, or has it been more of a burden than anything else? I can definitely say that it's been very good for me, in that I learned a hell of a lot reading all of the lovely papers posters cited. It's also been a lot of fun meeting people who were interested in a lot of the same things that I was. I'm not so happy about my own contribution though. Did I do anything at all to advance the state of the art? Well, no. I mostly just flapped my lips. It's asymmetrical, I learned way more than I taught. The best I could do was play sounding board for some of Ian's ideas while dinking around with Maru's guts. BTW if you haven't looked at it, Maru is way cool. VPRI has done something pretty awesome and weird here, in that the dialogue was wide open the whole time. As I gather, it was in the spirit of ARPA. We've had our share of trolls, long-winded posters (raises hand) and just general chaos. I really enjoyed the guy who called us all a bunch of Alan Kay fanboys the other day by the way. That was just priceless. Like we can't think for ourselves! (Alan if I can get an autograph after this I think I'll be set.) So seriously, has this been worthwhile? I'm not just asking VPRI folks, though I'm DEFINITELY asking VPRI folks, I'm also asking everyone else on the list. I learned a lot, huge win for me, and we talked in circles a bunch, some of that was fun. I can also think of a few parts where I felt pretty strongly that it *was* worthwhile. To throw out an example, remember when Dale Schumacher asked pretty poignantly whether or not the original idea behind objects/messages was similar to the actor model? That was like a blockbuster for nerds it was so awesome. That totally rocked. That's me. Okay now talk amongst yourselves go! ?
From: Alan Kay <alan.nemo-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc <at> vpri.org>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] 90% glue code
The only really good -- and reasonable accurate -- book about the history of Lick, ARPA-IPTO (no "D", that is went things went bad), and Xerox PARC is "Dream Machines" by Mitchel Waldrop.Cheers,AlanFrom: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman-P1VNS8POhBI6wNttFIQijw@public.gmane.org>
To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] 90% glue code
Casey Ransberger wrote:
> This Licklider guy is interesting. CS + psych = cool.
A lot more than cool. Lick was the guy who:
- MIT Professor
- pioneered timesharing (bought the first production PDP-1 for BBN) and AI work at BBN
- served as the initial Program Manager at DARPA/IPTO (the folks who funded the ARPANET)
- Director of Project MAC at MIT for a while
- wrote some really seminal papers - "Man-Computer Symbiosis"is write up there with Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think"
/It seems reasonable to envision, for a time 10 or 15 years hence, a 'thinking center' that will incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval./
/The picture readily enlarges itself into a network of such centers, connected to one another by wide-band communication lines and to individual users by leased-wire services. In such a system, the speed of the computers would be balanced, and the cost of the gigantic memories and the sophisticated programs would be divided by the number of users./
- J.C.R. Licklider, Man-Computer Symbiosis <http://memex.org/licklider.html>, 1960.
- perhaps the earliest conception of the Internet:
In a 1963 memo to "Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network," Licklider theorized that a computer network could help researchers share information and even enable people with common interests to interact online.
(http://web.archive.org/web/20071224090235/http://www.today.ucla.edu/1999/990928looking.html)
Outside the community he kept a very low profile. One of the greats.
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div><div> <div><span>Wow, automatic spelling correctors suck, especially early in the morning ....</span></div> <div><span><br></span></div> <div><span><span class="Apple-style-span">The only really good -- and reasonably accurate -- book about the history of Lick, ARPA-IPTO (no "D", that is when things went bad), and Xerox PARC is "Dream Machines" by Mitchell Waldrop.</span><br></span></div> <div><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></span></div> <div><span><span class="Apple-style-span">Cheers,</span></span></div> <div><span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br></span></span></div> <div><span><span class="Apple-style-span">Alan</span></span></div> <div> <br><blockquote> <div> <div> <div dir="ltr"> <span>From:</span> Alan Kay <alan.nemo@...><br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc <at> vpri.org> <br><span>Sent:</span> Friday, April 19, 2013 5:53 AM<br><span>Subject:</span> Re: [fonc] 90% glue code<br> </div> <div class="y_msg_container"> <br><div><div><div> <div><span>The only really good -- and reasonable accurate -- book about the history of Lick, ARPA-IPTO (no "D", that is went things went bad), and Xerox PARC is "Dream Machines" by Mitchel Waldrop.</span></div> <div><br></div> <div>Cheers,</div> <div><br></div> <div>Alan</div> <div> <br><blockquote> <div> <div> <div dir="ltr"> <span>From:</span> Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@...><br><span>To:</span> Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@...> <br><span>Sent:</span> Friday, April 19, 2013 5:45 AM<br><span>Subject:</span> Re: [fonc] 90% glue code<br> </div> <div class="yiv346530792y_msg_container"> <br> Casey Ransberger wrote:<br>> This Licklider guy is interesting. CS + psych = cool.<br><br>A lot more than cool. Lick was the guy who:<br>- MIT Professor<br>- pioneered timesharing (bought the first production PDP-1 for BBN) and AI work at BBN<br>- served as the initial Program Manager at DARPA/IPTO (the folks who funded the ARPANET)<br>- Director of Project MAC at MIT for a while<br>- wrote some really seminal papers - "Man-Computer Symbiosis"is write up there with Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think"<br><br>/It seems reasonable to envision, for a time 10 or 15 years hence, a 'thinking center' that will incorporate the functions of present-day libraries together with anticipated advances in information storage and retrieval./<br><br>/The picture readily enlarges itself into a network of such centers, connected to one another by wide-band communication lines and to individual users by leased-wire services. In such a system, the speed of the computers would be balanced, and the cost of the gigantic memories and the sophisticated programs would be divided by the number of users./<br><br>- J.C.R. Licklider, Man-Computer Symbiosis <<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://memex.org/licklider.html">http://memex.org/licklider.html</a>>, 1960.<br><br>- perhaps the earliest conception of the Internet:<br>In a 1963 memo to "Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network," Licklider theorized that a computer network could help researchers share information and even enable people with common interests to interact online.<br>(http://web.archive.org/web/20071224090235/http://www.today.ucla.edu/1999/990928looking.html)<br><br>Outside the community he kept a very low profile. One of the greats.<br><br>Miles Fidelman<br><br>-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.<br>In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>fonc mailing list<br><a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:fonc@..." target="_blank" href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc<br><br><br> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br>fonc mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:fonc@..." href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> </div></div>
Does anyone have a fast API for getting/putting "the nth line of a file"? This would replace a relational way of storing strings, caching is acceptable. C++ is preferred.
<div><p dir="ltr">Does anyone have a fast API for getting/putting "the nth line of a file"? This would replace a relational way of storing strings, caching is acceptable. C++ is preferred.</p></div>
Isn't one of the points of idst/COLA/Frank/whatever-it-is-called-today to simplify the development of domain-specific models to such an extent that their casual application becomes conceivable, and indeed even practical, as opposed to designing a new one-size-fits-all language every decade or so?
I had another idea the other day that could profit from a domain-specific model: a model for compiler passes. I stumbled upon the nanopass approach [1] to compiler construction some time ago and found that I like it. Then it occurred to me that if one could express the passes in some sort of a domain-specific language, the total compilation pipeline could be assembled from the individual passes in a much more efficient way that would be the case if the passes were written in something like C++.
In order to do that, however, no matter what the intermediate values in the pipeline would be (trees? annotated graphs?), the individual passes would have to be analyzable in some way. For example, two passes may or may not interfere with each other, and therefore may or may not be commutative, associative, and/or fusable (in the same respect that, say, Haskell maps over lists are fusable). I can't imagine that C++ code would be analyzable in this way, unless one were to use some severely restricted subset of C++ code. It would be ugly anyway.
Composing the passes by fusing the traversals and transformations would decrease the number of memory accesses, speed up the compilation process, and encourage the compiler writer to write more fine-grained passes, in the same sense that deep inlining in modern language implementations encourages the programmer to write small and reusable routines, even higher-order ones, without severe performance penalties. Lowering the barrier to implementing such a problem-specific language seems to make such an approach viable, perhaps even desirable, given how convoluted most "production compilers" seem to be.
(If I've just written something that amounts to complete gibberish, please shoot me. I just felt like writing down an idea that occurred to me recently and bouncing it off somebody.)
- Gath
[1] Kent Dybvig, A nanopass framework for compiler education (2005), http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.72.5578
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div><div dir="ltr"> <div>(Forwarded from Layers thread)</div> <div><br></div>On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Gath-Gealaich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gath.na.gealaich@..." target="_blank">gath.na.gealaich@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <div class="im"> <span>Isn't one of the points of idst/COLA/Frank/whatever-it-≤/span><span>is-called-today to simplify the development of domain-specific models to such an extent that their casual application becomes conceivable, and indeed even practical, as opposed to designing a new one-size-fits-all language every decade or so?</span> </div> </div></div> </div></blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><span> </span></div></div> </div></div></blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <div class="im"> <span>I had another idea the other day that could profit from a domain-specific model: a model for compiler passes. I stumbled upon the nanopass approach [1] to compiler construction some time ago and found that I like it. Then it occurred to me that if one could express the passes in some sort of a domain-specific language, the total compilation pipeline could be assembled from the individual passes in a much more efficient way that would be the case if the passes were written in something like C++.</span><br> </div> <div> <br>In order to do that, however, no matter what the intermediate values in the pipeline would be (trees? annotated graphs?), the individual passes would have to be analyzable in some way. For example, two passes may or may not interfere with each other, and therefore may or may not be commutative, associative, and/or fusable (in the same respect that, say, Haskell maps over lists are fusable). I can't imagine that C++ code would be analyzable in this way, unless one were to use some severely restricted subset of C++ code. It would be ugly anyway.<br><br>Composing the passes by fusing the traversals and transformations would decrease the number of memory accesses, speed up the compilation process, and encourage the compiler writer to write more fine-grained passes, in the same sense that deep inlining in modern language implementations encourages the programmer to write small and reusable routines, even higher-order ones, without severe performance penalties. Lowering the barrier to implementing such a problem-specific language seems to make such an approach viable, perhaps even desirable, given how convoluted most "production compilers" seem to be.<br><br>(If I've just written something that amounts to complete gibberish, please shoot me. I just felt like writing down an idea that occurred to me recently and bouncing it off somebody.)<br><br>- Gath<br><br>[1] Kent Dybvig, A nanopass framework for compiler education (2005), <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.72.5578" target="_blank">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.72.5578</a><br> </div> </div></div></div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> </div></div>
I hope you aren't so hypocritical as to claim that 'programming shouldn't be easier than physics' in one breath then preach 'use actors' in another.
I think in terms of actors/messages first, so no argument there :D
Actors are already an enormous simplification from physics. It even simplifies away the media for communication.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tristan Slominski <tristan.slominski-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:I think we don't know whether time exists in the first place.That only matters to people who want "as close to the Universe as possible".To the rare scientist who is not also a philosopher, it only matters whether time is effective for describing and predicting behavior about the universe, and the same is true for notions of particles, waves, energy, entropy, etc..I believe our world is 'synchronous' in the sense of things happening at the same time in different places...It seems to me that you are describing a privileged frame of reference.How is it privileged?Would you consider your car mechanic to have a 'privileged' frame of reference on our universe because he can look down at your vehicle's engine and recognize when components are in or out of synch? Is it not obviously the case that, even while out of synch, the different components are still doing things at the same time?Is there any practical or scientific merit for your claim? I believe there is abundant scientific and practical merit to models and technologies involving multiple entities or components moving and acting at the same time.I've built a system that does what you mention is difficult above. It incorporates autopoietic and allopoietic properties, enables object capability security and has hints of antifragility, all guided by the actor model of computation.Impressive. But with Turing complete models, the ability to build a system is not a good measure of distance. How much discipline (best practices, boiler-plate, self-constraint) and foresight (or up-front design) would it take to develop and use your system directly from a pure actors model?I don't want programming to be easier than physics. Why? First, this implies that physics is somehow difficult, and that there ought to be a better way.Physics is difficult. More precisely: setting up physical systems to compute a value or accomplish a task is very difficult. Measurements are noisy. There are many non-obvious interactions (e.g. heat, vibration, covert channels). There are severe spatial constraints, locality constraints, energy constraints. It is very easy for things to 'go wrong'.Programming should be easier than physics so it can handle higher levels of complexity. I'm not suggesting that programming should violate physics, but programs shouldn't be subject to the same noise and overhead. If we had to think about adding fans and radiators to our actor configurations to keep them cool, we'd hardly get anything done.I hope you aren't so hypocritical as to claim that 'programming shouldn't be easier than physics' in one breath then preach 'use actors' in another. Actors are already an enormous simplification from physics. It even simplifies away the media for communication.Whatever happened to the pursuit of "Maxwell's equations for Computer Science"? "Simple" is not the same as "easy"."Simple" is also not the same as "physics".Maxwell's equations are a metaphor that we might apply to a specific model or semantics. Maxwell's equations describe a set of invariants and relationships between properties. If you want such equations, you'll generally need to design your model to achieve them.On this forum, 'Nile' is sometimes proffered as an example of the power of equational reasoning, but is a domain specific model.
if we (literally, you and I in our bodies communicating via the Internet) did not get here through composition, integration, open extension and abstraction, then I don't know how to make a better argument to demonstrate those properties are a part of physics and layering on top of itDo you even have an argument that we are here through composition, integration, open extension, and abstraction? I'm a bit lost as to what that would even mean unless you're liberally reinterpreting the words.In any case, it doesn't matter whether physics has these properties, only whether they're accessible to a programmer. It is true that any programming model must be implemented within physics, of course, but that's not the layer exposed to the programmers.
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc-uVco7kAcSAQ@public.gmane.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
<div><div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><span>I hope you aren't so hypocritical as to claim that 'programming shouldn't be easier than physics' in one breath then preach 'use actors' in another. </span></blockquote> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br>Hypocrisy: "..pretending to have (...) principles, that one does not actually have". I'm not pretending.</div> <div class="gmail_extra"><br></div> <div class="gmail_extra">Preaching: "<span>To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with". </span>I'm pretty sure I'm not "preaching." If you look at how actors were brought into the conversation, I explained which model I attempt first (not only) in order to think about a problem. And I was agreeing with you:</div> <div class="gmail_extra"><br></div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <span>I think in terms of actors/messages first, so no argument there :D</span> </blockquote> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div><br></div> <div>The rest of the "preaching" resulted from me trying to communicate how *I* think about actors because we clearly have different views on this way of modeling computation, and I'm pretty careful to add "I think" and "in my opinion" where appropriate. I engaged with you because I'm interested as to how learning the issues you've had with implementing actor systems could help me build actor systems and address or maybe even avoid the problems, or perhaps even reach the same conclusions about actors that you've come to from your experiences.</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><span>Actors are already an enormous simplification from physics. It even simplifies away the media for communication.</span></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Despite what I perceive as hyperbole, it is a valid point indeed. It gives me a reason to consider if it is possible to somehow specify the communication media more precisely? </div> <div><br></div> <div>However, I start to wonder how well have we specified the physical media for communication. What's our description of a photon traveling through space? Or a muon? Have physics agreed yet on what "space" is? I'm familiar with quantum foam being one of the latest hypothesis, as well as not being able to agree on how many dimensions there are (M/String theory, I think). </div> <div><br></div> <div>Perhaps in implementations of actor messaging, we'll further discover a simpler principle at work by making it work in the real world (hard for me to imagine it right now), hence providing an existence proof.</div> </div> <div class="gmail_extra"> <br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:29 PM, David Barbour <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmbarbour@..." target="_blank">dmbarbour@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"> <br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <div class="im">On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Tristan Slominski <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tristan.slominski@..." target="_blank">tristan.slominski@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"> <div>I think we don't know whether time exists in the first place.</div> </div></blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div>That only matters to people who want "as close to the Universe as possible". </div> <div><br></div> <div>To the rare scientist who is not also a philosopher, it only matters whether time is effective for describing and predicting behavior about the universe, and the same is true for notions of particles, waves, energy, entropy, etc.. </div> <div class="im"> <div><br></div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <span>I believe our world is 'synchronous' in the sense of things happening at the same time in different places...</span> </blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>It seems to me that you are describing a privileged frame of reference.</div> </div></blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div>How is it privileged? </div> <div><br></div> <div>Would you consider your car mechanic to have a 'privileged' frame of reference on our universe because he can look down at your vehicle's engine and recognize when components are in or out of synch? Is it not obviously the case that, even while out of synch, the different components are still doing things at the same time? </div> <div><br></div> <div>Is there any practical or scientific merit for your claim? I believe there is abundant scientific and practical merit to models and technologies involving multiple entities or components moving and acting at the same time.</div> <div class="im"> <div> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"><br></blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_extra">I've built a system that does what you mention is difficult above. It incorporates autopoietic and allopoietic properties, enables object capability security and has hints of antifragility, all guided by the actor model of computation.</div> </div></div> </blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div>Impressive. But with Turing complete models, the ability to build a system is not a good measure of distance. How much discipline (best practices, boiler-plate, self-constraint) and foresight (or up-front design) would it take to develop and use your system directly from a pure actors model? </div> <div class="im"> <div><br></div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> </blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_extra">I don't want programming to be easier than physics. Why? First, this implies that physics is somehow difficult, and that there ought to be a better way. </div> </div></div> </blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div> <div>Physics is difficult. More precisely: setting up physical systems to compute a value or accomplish a task is very difficult. Measurements are noisy. There are many non-obvious interactions (e.g. heat, vibration, covert channels). There are severe spatial constraints, locality constraints, energy constraints. It is very easy for things to 'go wrong'. </div> <div><br></div> <div>Programming should be easier than physics so it can handle higher levels of complexity. I'm not suggesting that programming should violate physics, but programs shouldn't be subject to the same noise and overhead. If we had to think about adding fans and radiators to our actor configurations to keep them cool, we'd hardly get anything done.</div> <div><br></div> <div>I hope you aren't so hypocritical as to claim that 'programming shouldn't be easier than physics' in one breath then preach 'use actors' in another. Actors are already an enormous simplification from physics. It even simplifies away the media for communication.</div> <div><br></div> </div> <div class="im"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> </blockquote> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"> <div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_extra">Whatever happened to the pursuit of "Maxwell's equations for Computer Science"? "Simple" is not the same as "easy".</div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div>"Simple" is also not the same as "physics".</div> <div><br></div> <div>Maxwell's equations are a metaphor that we might apply to a specific model or semantics. Maxwell's equations describe a set of invariants and relationships between properties. If you want such equations, you'll generally need to design your model to achieve them. </div> <div><br></div> <div>On this forum, 'Nile' is sometimes proffered as an example of the power of equational reasoning, but is a domain specific model.</div> <div class="im"> <div> <br> </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote"> <div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"> <div> <div class="gmail_extra"><br></div> </div> <div class="gmail_extra">if we (literally, you and I in our bodies communicating via the Internet) did not get here through composition, integration, open extension and abstraction, then I don't know how to make a better argument to demonstrate those properties are a part of physics<span> </span><span>and layering on top of it</span> </div> </div></div> </blockquote> <div><br></div> </div> <div>Do you even have an argument that we are here through composition, integration, open extension, and abstraction? I'm a bit lost as to what that would even mean unless you're liberally reinterpreting the words.</div> <div><br></div> <div>In any case, it doesn't matter whether physics has these properties, only whether they're accessible to a programmer. It is true that any programming model must be implemented within physics, of course, but that's not the layer exposed to the programmers.</div> <div><br></div> </div></div> </div> <br>_______________________________________________<br> fonc mailing list<br><a href="mailto:fonc@...">fonc@...</a><br><a href="http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc" target="_blank">http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc</a><br><br> </blockquote> </div> <br> </div> </div></div>
RSS Feed1 | |
|---|---|
242 | |
37 | |
129 | |
56 | |
113 | |
35 | |
53 | |
12 | |
10 | |
100 | |
68 | |
30 | |
138 | |
205 | |
121 | |
90 | |
77 | |
65 | |
62 | |
68 | |
174 | |
222 | |
309 | |
40 | |
48 | |
16 | |
13 | |
41 | |
66 | |
27 | |
77 | |
4 | |
72 | |
55 | |
151 | |
128 | |
27 | |
4 | |
1 | |
1 | |
4 | |
6 | |
9 | |
10 | |
3 | |
26 | |
2 | |
5 | |
41 | |
14 | |
51 | |
26 | |
37 | |
24 | |
162 | |
49 | |
63 | |
49 | |
22 | |
14 | |
68 | |
172 | |
6 | |
31 | |
10 | |
27 | |
32 | |
31 | |
1 |
