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 20:42 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo 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 (CSP) is simply a programming language. They don't represent any Computer Science theorem and they don't show how to derive anything. See: http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/publications/books/concurrency/text/appendixB/page-495.html Steven Zenith, I really do think you should go ahead and give your example here. I am afraid that people might think, the only reason to go on and on for 20 posts but never give your example is that you're just a liar and don't have it - the only possible explanation is that you're just bullshitting us. Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven > > -- > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith > IASE, Sunnyvale, California
From: Charlie-Boo on 2 Oct 2006 22:04 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > > 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? > > The error I made was in the convention of typing the reals - I > apologize for the confusion that it introduced. I essentially advocated > - because in my current work includes developing a rational point > theory - that rational and irrational numbers are distinct types. No, it wasn't in reference to your work or "types". It was in reference to established mathematics that has existed since antiquity. You wrote, "Since when is root 2 a real number?" The answer is that it has been known since 500 BC. You responded that, "I spend so much time with the irrationals that I forgot they are classifiable as infinite reals." It is peculiar that you would work with a subject so much but not have a firm grasp of its fundamental properties. This also displays another lack of understanding, this time of infinity. Irrational numbers, such as the square root of 2, are not "classifiable as infinite reals." Any irrational number is a finite quantity. You are now confusing the size of a quantity with the number of digits in its expansion. As far as the number of digits in the expansion of a number goes, that is not even an inherent property of the number, but rather depends on the base used. So it is meaningless to refer to the number of digits in a number in the first place without, in general, indicating the base. 1/3 is rational but has an infinite number of digits in base 10, and only 1 digit in base 3. Certainly you understand that 1/3 is a finite number, don't you? I am still wondering what you typed by mistake, and what you meant to type. What you said cannot be corrected by a simple syntactic change, which would be characteristic of an actual "typing error." Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 3 Oct 2006 04:19 Charlie-Boo wrote: > That (CSP) is simply a programming language. Perhaps you should actually read the book. With respect, Steven
From: Steven Zenith on 3 Oct 2006 04:28 Charlie-Boo wrote: > No, it wasn't in reference to your work or "types". It was in > reference to established mathematics that has existed since antiquity. Now we are just compounding our ignorance - ask Dedekind. With respect, Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 3 Oct 2006 05:11
Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > That (CSP) is simply a programming language. > > Perhaps you should actually read the book. That statement does not prove anything. You claim that your references contain a formal derivation of a result from Computer Science. What page of what reference contains the formal representation of that result? What page contains the formal derivation? For the sake of expediency and communication with all observers, could you copy that result here? If not, I will copy it here for you - even although I think that it is your responsibility to present it, and it would be infinitely more efficient if you were to make the effort to present your proof. Your friend, C-B > With respect, > Steven |