/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11019189

104KiB, 960x960, 44797781_10204843517005453_3879859187877937152_n.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 06:04:35 2019 No.11019189 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11019214

Common lisp is superior to academic is superior to academic mathematics because syntactic macros allow it to operate as a supercategory.

Common lisp is capable of performing calculus operations showing every step of work along the way. Common lisp is additionally calculable through both set theory and category theory which are formally equivalent.

Common lisp as a formal languages allows for the use of fully hygienic syntactic macros that allows common lisp to transform into any other given formal language. Every notational system in which math is encoded can in and of itself be encoded into a series of syntactic macros in common lisp.

Math and computer science should merge into one field called Lisp.

Linguistically speaking Latin is the lisp of natural languages. The language used in engineering should be Latin.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:09:33 No.11019198 Report

Quoted By: >>11019199

Do you know why Lisp isn't popular among businesses? It's because it's TOO productive. Businesses love Java because it is so tightly regimented that you can give a horde of barely literate community college graduates a list of psudo-code to translate and they will generate the exact same code every time. There is never any room to experiment, innovate, or try different solutions in Java; you simply follow the rules that have been handed down to you by your Sun/Oracle overlords. That way, one true programmer who does the actual thinking can herd the code monkeys effectively and they can be used as a machine to translate ideas into code.

Lisp is the exact opposite of that. Boundless possibilities; where Java is a regimented barracks of a language, Lisp is a blank slate; a tool that is used to manifest ideas in ways that can control machines. There are little in the way of restrictions on how certain things can be done, and thus it is all but useless in group based, zero-thought cubicle farms. Code monkeys would struggle to understand Lisp in the first place, because they are trained not to think but to follow rules, and Lisp has no rules. Even if they know the syntax, give ten Ivy Tech "graduates" psudo code and they will all produce the same or nearly the same Java code. Give the same psudo-code to ten Lisp programmers and the ten samples of code you get back won't even resemble each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:10:35 No.11019199 Report

Quoted By:

>>11019198
Software firms create software the same way automotive firms create cars: through ordered assembly lines and chains of command designed to crush any form of individuality or inconsistency. They use employees as machines that repeat the same tasks over and over, all producing exactly the same end result. Java is perfect for this factory approach to programming, because it was designed for it, and thus companies use it. Lisp is horrible for it, as it *encourages*, and in fact *demands* thought, imagination, and creativity, rather than eliminating it. Thus, companies do not use it.

Java is McDonalds: mass produced trash put together by people whose actions are controlled utterly and any variation from the established canon is unacceptable/impossible. The end result is disgusting, and an insult to cooking. In fact, the word "cooking" is rarely used in reference to McDonalds, just as "computer science" is rarely applied to Java. Instead, "burger flipping" or "coding" is substituted. However, the end result is consistent across the world.

Lisp is a restaurant opened by a chef who is passionate about cooking. It can be difficult to accomplish because it requires actual knowledge instead of rote obedience to protocol, and any attempts at mass producing or outsourcing it will end in failure, but the end result is wonderful, beautiful, and a sublime example of what is possible in cooking/computer science.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 030.jpg, 27KiB, 228x242

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:23:34 No.11019214 Report

Quoted By: >>11019220 >>11019354

>>11019189
>Common lisp is additionally calculable through both set theory and category theory which are formally equivalent.
By category theory, do you mean type theory? It doesn't even make sense to say that set theory and category theory are formally equivalent. If you really meant type theory, I still don't think it's right to say that type theory and set theory are formally equivalent. For one, type theory sits only on itself, whereas set theory rests on first order logic. For another, type theory is often intuitionistic, whereas intuitionistic set theories are significantly less popular. For a third, any good modern type theory is going to incorporate universes, which puts it at least at the level of IZF + unbounded inaccessibles. I'm sure you could find a type theory and a set theory which are in some sense equivalent, maybe you could even argue that for every type theory there is a stronger set theory and vice versa, but it's misleading to say that set theory and type theory are formally equivalent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:33:47 No.11019220 Report

Quoted By: >>11019230

>>11019214
Type theory is a subcategory of category theory.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:41:59 No.11019230 Report

Quoted By:

>>11019220
Huh?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO lispy_anime1.png, 179KiB, 540x354

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 06:58:53 No.11019254 Report

Quoted By:

Not even the right board. Main reason to use Common Lisp is to get Python productivity while avoiding Py3k/Py4k nonsense and the brain dead Python syntax. If you're using lots of macros and taking advantage of the image system, more power to you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 08:46:36 No.11019354 Report

Quoted By: >>11019756

>>11019214
Type theory with any of the popular refinements e.g. product types, dependent types is on the face of it either the same as set theory, or the same as a set theory where you restrict your operations to only computable objects of one kind or another

The problem is that a lot of type faggots are brainlets from the CS or philosophy department who are only partially aware of the distinction between the different levels of computability and definability, and just assume this feature is unique to le Swedish Beard Man's system

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Sep 2019 14:04:39 No.11019756 Report

Quoted By:

>>11019354
Thanks for replying, but I wish you would have read my post before writing your response.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches