Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
Next: Modal Logic
From: Charlie-Boo on 1 Oct 2006 22:48 Steven Zenith wrote: > 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). You are continuing to characterize someone who speaks of something without being aware of its fundamentals as being someone who makes a mistake in the process of discussing something about which they have a sufficient understanding. Talking about real numbers and irrational numbers without being aware of basic principles regarding them is not an example of someone who discusses a subject in which they are proficient but makes a human error in the process. (The only "mistake" that comes to mind is their decision to attempt to appear fluent in that subject matter.) > The > termination problem that I highlighted in functions that compute the > root of 2 remains - the typing error is merely a matter of convention. What typing error is that - what did you mean to type instead? > Can you recognize your mistakes? Yes. Can you prove your assertions? C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 2 Oct 2006 02:19 Charlie-Boo wrote: > > Can you recognize your mistakes? > > Yes. My dear and sincere friend. What were they exactly? With respect, Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 2 Oct 2006 02:24 Charlie-Boo wrote: > > 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? I am saying that even if your claims are true, they are vacuous - since you are simply formalizing that which is already formalized. With respect, Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 2 Oct 2006 02:42 Charlie-Boo wrote: > > 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. The burden, thankfully, is not mine. > > It cannot have been peer reviewed. > > That conjecture - even if true - has no relevance to anything that we > have discussed. Are you claiming that this paper has been peer reviewed? I am fascinated by your behavior and assertions. A professional interest for me is navigating this type of confusion and disagreement in deliberations online and off-line. You get mostly hostile responses in other threads. I know you think otherwise, but I am not actually hostile to you. With respect, Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 2 Oct 2006 03:14
Charlie-Boo wrote: > (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.) Repeating false assertions does not make them right no matter how many times you say it. The work I have referred to is sufficiently well known in the field, books published, international standards set - and taught internationally in CS programs. With respect, Steven |