Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
Next: Modal Logic
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 08:22 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > > Can you recognize your mistakes? > > > > Yes. > > My dear and sincere friend. What were they exactly? In posts to this forum. Where is your formalization of a result of Computer Science? Why not give it here so we can all see it and evaluate it in 5 minutes, rather than giving bogus reference that take 5 hours to read and debunk, fot the sake of efficiency (a 60-fold increase) and communication to all readers of this forum? Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 08:30 Steven Zenith wrote: > 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. Who has already formally derived the fundamental results from Program Synthesis, Theory of Computation, Recursion Theory and Proof Theory? Can you substantiate that within this forum? What specifically have you seen that makes you believe that? So far you have written only informal English rather than any formalization. BTW Do you have a personal distaste for the idea that someone has posted to this forum results which the professors who control the publication of (supposedly) academic journals have not been able to accomplish? How about simply the fact that they claim to have accomplised various things which they have not? Or even simply the fact that there are useful problems that they have not solved? Do you believe that any of the above three scenarios has ever occurred? Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 08:54 Steven Zenith wrote: > 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. Do you believe that there is a burden of proof on one who makes a claim in a scientific discussion? > > > 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? No, the above states only that your conjecture - even if true - has no relevance to anything that we have discussed. (It is merely prejudicial.) > I am fascinated by your behavior and assertions. A professional > interest for me is navigating this type of confusion What is confused with what? Have you considered navigating a good book on fundamentals of real number arithmetic? > You get mostly hostile responses > in other threads. How is that assertion relevant? How is it substantiated? (Please, no unsubstantiated assertions in response to these questions - that is no more then the beginning of infinite regress.) > I know you think otherwise How do you know that? I am not aware of anyone possessing the power of prophesy (earlier claim) nor telepathy (current claim.) > but I am not actually > hostile to you. If course not. No need to waste time debating that. What do you think of someone who would cite a reference that does not contain what they claim? How would one go about showing that a reference cited does not contain what is claimed? Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 09:07 Steven Zenith wrote: > 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. You don't believe that I'm curious? > The work I have referred to is sufficiently well known in the field, > books published, international standards set - and taught > internationally in CS programs. How would that be relevant? How does that imply that it contains a formal derivation of a result from Computer Science? "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei Do you believe the above quote from Galileo Galilei? Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 09:56
Steven Zenith wrote: > Much work has been done in the formalization of Computer Science and > that work continues to be taught at various universities as far as I am > aware. Especially see the work of Roscoe, Hoare (CSP) and Milner - and > many others from a variety of camps. That is simply a programming language. They don't represent any Computer Science theorems and they don't show how to formally derive anything. No rules for deriving results are given. See: http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/publications/books/concurrency/text/appendixB/page-495.html Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > IASE, Sunnyvale, California |