Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
Next: Modal Logic
From: Steven Zenith on 1 Oct 2006 05:07 Charlie-Boo wrote: > I gave a reference to my ARXIV paper a little earlier (and I believe > you and I have discussed it before, if I am not mistaken.) In any > case, here is the on-line version again: > > http://www.arxiv.org/html/cs.lo/0003071 I took a closer look at this and as far as I can tell it is nonsense. It cannot have been peer reviewed. With respect, Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Oct 2006 20:59 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > You certainly have exhibited much misunderstanding regardng > > fundamentals of Mathematics, such as the nature of real numbers and > > irrational numbers in particular, as a number of people have pointed > > out in this thread. > > Of course, even great mathematicians can make mistakes :-) You are confusing human error with a lack of understanding. No "great mathematician" is unaware of the fact that the set of irrational numbers is a subset of the set of real numbers. Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Oct 2006 21:23 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > I gave a reference to my ARXIV paper a little earlier (and I believe > > you and I have discussed it before, if I am not mistaken.) In any > > case, here is the on-line version again: > > > > http://www.arxiv.org/html/cs.lo/0003071 > > I took a closer look at this and as far as I can tell it is nonsense. What part seems to be nonsense and why? I'd be glad to elaborate. > It cannot have been peer reviewed. That conjecture - even if true - has no relevance to anything that we have discussed. In fact, I am being kind in characterizing it as a "conjecture" - it is more an unsubstantiated (and irrelevant) assertion. Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 1 Oct 2006 21:34 Dear Friend Boo, Charlie-Boo wrote: > You are confusing human error with a lack of understanding. No "great > mathematician" is unaware of the fact that the set of irrational > numbers is a subset of the set of real numbers. I recognize my mistakes - you might consider how someone like me could make such an error (aside from sheer absent mindedness). The termination problem that I highlighted in functions that compute the root of 2 remains - the typing error is merely a matter of convention. Can you recognize your mistakes? With respect, Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Oct 2006 22:23
Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > Maybe if you simply gave the formal representation of the theorem that > > you have in mind and its formal derivation, that would show everyone > > why you believe what you say. It would certainly prove your point. > > That is normally how mathematical results are conveyed - by presenting, > > along with the claim, a proof of that claim so that the readers of the > > claim also see the proof along with it. > I do not see how such a demonstration is relevant here. All that was > necessary was to show where computer science has been formalized - it > was not actually necessary to perform the formalization. (I am curious as to how one could show that a formalization exists without giving such a formalization. I am aware of examples of nonconstructive proofs - e.g. of the existence of irrational A and B such that A^B is rational - but nothing of this sort regarding formalizations.) Are you saying that you proved that such a formalization exists without exhibiting such a formalization? What was your proof? > Similarly, it > was only necessary to indicate the results and not necessary to perform > them - especially since neither the formalism or the results that were > being defended. The above fragment, at a minimum, needs a verb at the end in order to be an English sentence. > I have met the standards of your request, which simply made an informal > claim that no area of computer science had been formalized. Which post showed that such a formalization exists? > After > reviewing the materials I pointed you toward, do you still claim that > this is the case? Your assertions are disproven and mine are proven - I refer you to the Library of Congress. After reviewing the materials I pointed you toward, do you still claim that this is the case? > I did perhaps misunderstand, in that I understood that the theorems you > were looking for were those of practical application but it seems you > were looking to repeat well-known results in logic. I don't know why you bring up questions of practicality or fame (and not completely why you believe they are related.) > This may be > interesting as a case study of some new formalism - but it hardly > constitutes a new contribution to the field. Are you saying that formalizing a branch of Computer Science is not a "contribution" to that branch? Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven |