Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
Next: Modal Logic
From: Steven Zenith on 23 Sep 2006 04:00 Charlie-Boo wrote: .... > > And while you are at it ask for the reference I gave you in the first > > place: > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Concurrency-W-Roscoe/dp/0136744095/sr=1-2/qid=1158936562/ref=sr_1_2/002-2129589-0385604?ie=UTF8&s=books > > That's a model for concurrency and synchronization, not program > construction, much less does it show how to formally derive programs. Which only shows us that I am a prophet. You have not read beyond the cover. Please, continue. With respect, Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 23 Sep 2006 11:43 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > ... > > > And while you are at it ask for the reference I gave you in the first > > > place: > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Concurrency-W-Roscoe/dp/0136744095/sr=1-2/qid=1158936562/ref=sr_1_2/002-2129589-0385604?ie=UTF8&s=books > > > > That's a model for concurrency and synchronization, not program > > construction, much less does it show how to formally derive programs. > > Which only shows us that I am a prophet. You have not read beyond the > cover. (Unsubstantiated as well.) But do you agree with or deny the above assertion? > Please, continue. You are asking me to prove a negative. Why don't you give the result here instead of wasting people's time with bogus references? Why not give it here? Why???? What reason do you have to withhold it???? End the endless cycle and show your proof. Ok? C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Chris Menzel on 23 Sep 2006 11:35 On 12 Sep 2006 17:42:14 -0700, Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> said: > Chris Menzel wrote: >> On 10 Sep 2006 14:29:13 -0700, Peter_Smith <ps218(a)cam.ac.uk> said: >> > >> > Chris Menzel wrote: >> > >> >> Can that proof be found in their Grundlagen der Mathematik? If >> >> so, do you happen to know which volume? >> > >> > Vol2, pp. 283-340. >> >> Thanks. > > I'm so impressed! By people who can speak two languages? My, your threshold is remarkably low. But, since you've resorted to one of your typical displays of nasty rhetoric in lieu of serious argument -- I picked up spotless copies of both volumes of Hilbert/Bernays for $10 at a book sale in grad school. They have remained packed away for the last 15 years or so, as I bought them mostly for historical interest, but Peter's reference suggested a reason to drag them out and actually read them.
From: Charlie-Boo on 23 Sep 2006 12:49 Chris Menzel wrote: > On 12 Sep 2006 17:42:14 -0700, Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> said: > > Chris Menzel wrote: > >> On 10 Sep 2006 14:29:13 -0700, Peter_Smith <ps218(a)cam.ac.uk> said: > >> > > >> > Chris Menzel wrote: > >> > > >> >> Can that proof be found in their Grundlagen der Mathematik? If > >> >> so, do you happen to know which volume? > >> > > >> > Vol2, pp. 283-340. > >> > >> Thanks. > > > > I'm so impressed! > > By people who can speak two languages? My, your threshold is remarkably > low. > > But, since you've resorted to one of your typical displays of nasty > rhetoric in lieu of serious argument Very rare - no more than 5-10% of my posts are no more than jesting. (But there is still a point here. Part of the game is to impress people. Recently one combatant without a logical basis finally admitted that he believed Moore/Boyer because of "their reputation". The emperor does keep his new clothes pressed and shiny.) C-B > -- I picked up spotless copies of > both volumes of Hilbert/Bernays for $10 at a book sale in grad school. > They have remained packed away for the last 15 years or so, as I bought > them mostly for historical interest, but Peter's reference suggested a > reason to drag them out and actually read them.
From: Charlie-Boo on 29 Sep 2006 17:17
Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > ... > > > And while you are at it ask for the reference I gave you in the first > > > place: > > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Concurrency-W-Roscoe/dp/0136744095/sr=1-2/qid=1158936562/ref=sr_1_2/002-2129589-0385604?ie=UTF8&s=books > > > > That's a model for concurrency and synchronization, not program > > construction, much less does it show how to formally derive programs. The real question here is what the standard should be. We can do either of the following: Plan A: You post a link to a dozen other links. You don't tell me which one or what page the supposed result is on. I spend 5 days going through them. Or you give a reference to a book, I spend a day tracking it down at the local libraries, maybe order it from amazon.com and wait 5 days for it to arrive. I spend a few hours reading the book. If I find the example I have asked for, I will describe it in a post and discuss it. If I don't find the example that I have asked for, what can I do? How can I prove that the reference is BS? It allows people to BS each other. I am worn down and never compensated for my wasted time. I concurred with your Plan A, and I wasted a lot of time. Plan B: You post the result here. I read it. We each spend 5 minutes. Every person reading this can see it. Which way do you prefer? You have chosen Plan A. Why? I chose Plan B. Why? It saves everybody time, everybody can see it, we can discuss it in real time. The truth is open to everyone. With Plan B, nobody else sees what I find. A lot of time is wasted. The free flow of information is hampered. I am anxious for people to see the truth about what I say, so I choose Plan B. But why do you choose Plan A? It has many drawbacks and no apparent advantages - unless you want to hide the truth. C-B > With respect, > Steven |