Why Has None of Computer Science been Formalized?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Simple yet Profound Metatheorem
Next: Modal Logic
From: Steven Zenith on 4 Oct 2006 01:00 Charlie-Boo wrote: > Hippasus of Metapontum proved that the > square root of 2 (the number you had so much trouble with) is > irrational around 500 BC. That is the date that I was referring to. But we were talking about the typing of reals, not about irrational numbers but about the typing of irrational numbers as reals. > BTW What publication and page number contains the formal representation > of a result from Computer Science and its formal derivation that you > have been touting for weeks? I already answered this and gave references to an ACM paper by Geof Barrett, as I recall. With respect, Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 4 Oct 2006 12:05 Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > > Why do you think that Prof. Gio Wiederhold of Stanford invited me to > > represent the United States as a Computer Scientist in a cultural > > exchange with the People's Republic of China under the People to > > People program? > > He knows about the coming war and figures you have destructive > potential or he was trying to politely get rid of you? Jealous. What publication and page number is your formally represented and derived result from Computer Science on? You keep bragging about it and saying you won't give it because it's available in the literature - what page is it on? > Just guessing. Guess again. (I published a lot about program verification, programming language design, and formalization of Computer Science (the genesis of Computationally Based Logics) then. Is it conceivable that that had anything to do with it? He did attend one of the Computer Science conferences at which I gave an invited presentation.) Your admirer, C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 4 Oct 2006 20:46 Steven Zenith, Charlie-Boo wrote: > > Hippasus of Metapontum proved that the > > square root of 2 (the number you had so much trouble with) is > > irrational around 500 BC. That is the date that I was referring to. > > But we were talking about the typing of reals, not about irrational > numbers but about the typing of irrational numbers as reals. No, we're talking about Mathematics, not about your madman ramblings about what "type" you decide to call the square root of 2. > > BTW What publication and page number contains the formal representation > > of a result from Computer Science and its formal derivation that you > > have been touting for weeks? > > I already answered this and gave references to an ACM paper by Geof > Barrett. No you didn't. I searched every page and here's the Google Search of this entire Google Group for "barrett". There are 16 finds: 15 Barretts that are all not Geof and appear in other threads, and your current reference claiming to have cited him: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/search?group=sci.logic&q=barrett&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group BTW ACM is an organization, not a publication. What is the publication and page? C-B > With respect, > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 4 Oct 2006 21:14 Charlie-Boo wrote: > Steven Zenith, Charlie-Boo wrote: > > > > Hippasus of Metapontum proved that the > > > square root of 2 (the number you had so much trouble with) is > > > irrational around 500 BC. That is the date that I was referring to. > > > > But we were talking about the typing of reals, not about irrational > > numbers but about the typing of irrational numbers as reals. > > No, we're talking about Mathematics, not about your madman ramblings > about what "type" you decide to call the square root of 2. > > > > BTW What publication and page number contains the formal representation > > > of a result from Computer Science and its formal derivation that you > > > have been touting for weeks? > > > > I already answered this and gave references to an ACM paper by Geof > > Barrett. > > No you didn't. I searched every page and here's the Google Search > of this entire Google Group for "barrett". There are 16 finds: 15 > Barretts that are all not Geof and appear in other threads, and your > current reference claiming to have cited him: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/search?group=sci.logic&q=barrett&qt_g=1&searchnow=Search+this+group My mistake. If you go to the last page and tell Google to repeat the search it shows up. I'll check it out. C-B > BTW ACM is an organization, not a publication. > > What is the publication and page? > > C-B > > > With respect, > > Steven
From: Charlie-Boo on 4 Oct 2006 21:53
Steven Zenith wrote: > Charlie-Boo wrote: > > ... And you claim that people want to give you awards but > > you're too busy to accept them? What was the award for, Volunteer of > > the Week? > > What on earth are you talking about? You wrote, "In 1990, INMOS and Oxford shared a Queens Award for Industry for formally demonstrating that the Transputer microprocessor floating point unit met the IEEE floating point standard. The proof was actually performed by a colleague of mine, David Shepherd. Now I have no time for such awards myself." > Your lack of sincerity and ad hominem attacks are transparent and > unnecessary. If it is not a sincere comment (such as the above levity) then it can't be an actual attack, much less an ad hominem attack which would rely on a serious personal condemnation. Your characterizations are mutually inconsistent. With levity, C-B > With respect, > Steven |