8 ms·

Sure, you can model imperative steps in a variety of ways using mathematics, but for 99% of mathematics there is a far more direct link to pure functions. In ho

Sure, you can model imperative steps in a variety of ways using mathematics, but for 99% of mathematics there is a far more direct link to pure functions. In how many branches of mathematics do you see a function that is anything but a mapping between sets (or types, or objects in a category). In terms of using the same kind of processes and intuitions, pure functional programming is much closer to mathematics as done by humans than imperative programming. Even theoretical computer science looks this way outside of particular algorithms being studied. Not that this is some sort of indictment of imperative programming; it's a much better fit for a lot of different situations. But if you're trying to model something in abstract mathematics, pure or pure-ish function programming is likely to be a better solution. For example, look at the various proof assistants like Coq. Many of them are written in functional languages, and if you look at the code you can see why: the manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with an immutable, functional approach.

pron 10y ago
> but for 99% of mathematics there is a far more direct link to pure functions. But state transitions are pure! Deterministic state machines are nothing more than mathematical functions from one algorithm state to the next, and nondeterministic ones are binary relations! (see this for an overview: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/state-machine.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/s...) Those can then be mathematically manipulated, substituted and what-have-you elegantly and simply. This is how formal verification has been reasoning about programs since the seventies (early on the formalization was a bit more cumbersome, but the concept was as simple). > For example, look at the various proof assistants like Coq. For example, look at the specification language (and proof assistant) TLA+. It is far simpler than Coq, just as pure, and requires no more than highschool math. Coq and other PFP formalizations are built on the core idea of denotational semantics, an approximation which at times only complicates the very simple math of computation, requiring exotic math like category theory. > the manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with an immutable, functional approach. The manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with the imperative approach, only no category theory is required, and core concepts such as simulation/trace-inclusion arise naturally without need for complex embeddings. "PFP math" is what arises after you've decided to use denotational semantics. The most important thing is not to confuse language -- for which PFP has an elegant albeit arcane mathematical formalization -- with the very simple mathematical concepts underlying computation. PFP is an attempt to apply one specific mathematical formulation to programming languages (other similar, though perhaps less successful attempts are the various process calculi). But it is by no means the natural mathematics of computation. Conflating language with algorithms is a form of deconstructionism: an interesting philosophical concept, but by no means a simple one, and perhaps not the most appropriate one for a science. Short of that, we have the basic, simple core math, and on top of it languages, some espousing various mathematical formalizations, related to the core math in interesting ways, and some less mathematical. But the math of computation isn't created by the language!
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  > But state transitions are pure! Deterministic state machines are nothing more than (obviously, "pure") functions from one program state to the next, and nondeterministic ones are binary relations! Okay, yes, but 99% of mathematics isn't deterministic state machines. So again, pure functions can model a lot of things, but deterministic state machines are foreign to the way people think about mathematics in most instances. > For example, look at the pure specification language (and proof assistant) TLA+. It is far simpler than Coq, just as pure, and requires no more than highschool math. Okay, that's completely fine as an example. I just mentioned Coq because it's one of the better known ones. > Coq and other PFP formalizations are built on the core idea of denotational semantics, an approximation which at times only complicates the very simple math of computation, requiring exotic math like category theory. I'm not sure where CiC (or any of the other recent type theories, including HOTT) requires category theory (which is hardly exotic in 2016). People who are doing meta-mathematics on these systems are interested in categorical models and such, but implementing and using these systems requires no category theory. Categories are not fundamental objects in these theories; you have to build them just like you do in material set theories, although some parts of that process are easier (especially in HOTT). But that is the reverse of the link that you're claiming. > The manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with the imperative approach, only no category theory is required, and core concepts such as simulation/trace-inclusion arise naturally without need for complex embeddings. Again, no category theory is required (though I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing?) to develop a prover like Coq or TLA+. If you're bringing simulation and trace-inclusion into this, then you're just saying the stateful, imperative approach is well adapted to working with stateful, imperative systems. I agree, but how exactly does that equate to that approach having any benefit whatsoever for formalizing the rest of mathematics?
  - pron 10y ago
    > Okay, yes, but 99% of mathematics isn't deterministic state machines. So again, pure functions can model a lot of things, but deterministic state machines are foreign to the way people think about mathematics in most instances. Sorry, I wasn't clear. 99% of mathematics isn't Schrödinger's equation either, but Schrödinger's equation is still relatively simple math. State machines are simple math, but math isn't state machines. State machines are the concept that underlies computation, and simple math is used to reason about them. > I just mentioned Coq because it's one of the better known ones. ... and one of the least used ones, at least where software is concerned. There's a reason for that: it's very hard (let alone for engineers) to reason about computer programs in Coq; it's much easier (and done by engineers) to reason about computer programs in TLA+ (or SPIN or B-Method or Alloy). > which is hardly exotic in 2016 I think it's safe to say that most mathematicians in 2016 -- let alone software engineers -- are pretty unfamiliar with category theory, and have hardly heard of type theory. Engineers, however, already have nearly all the math they need to reason about programs and algorithm in the common mathematical way (they just may not know it, which is why I so obnoxiously bring it up whenever I can, to offset the notion that is way overrepresented here on HN that believes that "PFP is the way to mathematically reason about programs". It is just one way, not even the most common one, and certainly not the easiest one). > but implementing and using these systems requires no category theory. Right, but we're talking about foundational principles of computation. Those systems are predicated on denotational semantics, which is a formalization that identifies a computation with the function it computes (yes, some of those systems also have definitional equality, but still, denotational semantics is the core principle), rather than view the computation as built up from functions (in fact, this is precisely what monads do and why they're needed, as the basic denotational semantics fails to capture many important computations). This formalization isn't any better or worse (each could be defined in terms of the other), but it is more complicated, and is unnecessary to mathematically reason about programs. It does require CT concepts like monads to precisely denote certain computations. > If you're bringing simulation and trace-inclusion into this, then you're just saying the stateful, imperative approach is well adapted to working with stateful, imperative systems. There are no "imperative systems". Imperative/functional is a feature of the language used to describe a computation, not the computation itself (although, colloquially we say functional/imperative algorithms to refer to those algorithms that commonly arise when using the different linguistic approaches). The algorithm is always a state machine (assuming no textual deconstructionism) -- whether expressed in a language like Haskell or in a language like BASIC -- and that algorithm can be reasoned about with pretty basic math. And I am not talking about a "stateful" approach, but a basic mathematical approach based on state machines (a non-stateful pure functional program also ultimately defines a state machine). > I agree, but how exactly does that equate to that approach having any benefit whatsoever for formalizing the rest of mathematics? Oh, I wasn't talking about a new way to formalize the foundation of mathematics (which, I've been told, is the goal of type theory), nor do I think that a new foundation for math is required to mathematically reason about computation (just as it isn't necessary to reason about physics). I just pointed out that algorithms have a very elegant mathematical formulation in "simple" math, which is unrelated to PFP. This formulation serves as the basis for most formal reasoning of computer programs.

pron 10y ago

> but for 99% of mathematics there is a far more direct link to pure functions. But state transitions are pure! Deterministic state machines are nothing more than mathematical functions from one algorithm state to the next, and nondeterministic ones are binary relations! (see this for an overview: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/state-machine.pdf http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/s...) Those can then be mathematically manipulated, substituted and what-have-you elegantly and simply. This is how formal verification has been reasoning about programs since the seventies (early on the formalization was a bit more cumbersome, but the concept was as simple). > For example, look at the various proof assistants like Coq. For example, look at the specification language (and proof assistant) TLA+. It is far simpler than Coq, just as pure, and requires no more than highschool math. Coq and other PFP formalizations are built on the core idea of denotational semantics, an approximation which at times only complicates the very simple math of computation, requiring exotic math like category theory. > the manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with an immutable, functional approach. The manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with the imperative approach, only no category theory is required, and core concepts such as simulation/trace-inclusion arise naturally without need for complex embeddings. "PFP math" is what arises after you've decided to use denotational semantics. The most important thing is not to confuse language -- for which PFP has an elegant albeit arcane mathematical formalization -- with the very simple mathematical concepts underlying computation. PFP is an attempt to apply one specific mathematical formulation to programming languages (other similar, though perhaps less successful attempts are the various process calculi). But it is by no means the natural mathematics of computation. Conflating language with algorithms is a form of deconstructionism: an interesting philosophical concept, but by no means a simple one, and perhaps not the most appropriate one for a science. Short of that, we have the basic, simple core math, and on top of it languages, some espousing various mathematical formalizations, related to the core math in interesting ways, and some less mathematical. But the math of computation isn't created by the language!

johncolanduoni 10y ago
> But state transitions are pure! Deterministic state machines are nothing more than (obviously, "pure") functions from one program state to the next, and nondeterministic ones are binary relations! Okay, yes, but 99% of mathematics isn't deterministic state machines. So again, pure functions can model a lot of things, but deterministic state machines are foreign to the way people think about mathematics in most instances. > For example, look at the pure specification language (and proof assistant) TLA+. It is far simpler than Coq, just as pure, and requires no more than highschool math. Okay, that's completely fine as an example. I just mentioned Coq because it's one of the better known ones. > Coq and other PFP formalizations are built on the core idea of denotational semantics, an approximation which at times only complicates the very simple math of computation, requiring exotic math like category theory. I'm not sure where CiC (or any of the other recent type theories, including HOTT) requires category theory (which is hardly exotic in 2016). People who are doing meta-mathematics on these systems are interested in categorical models and such, but implementing and using these systems requires no category theory. Categories are not fundamental objects in these theories; you have to build them just like you do in material set theories, although some parts of that process are easier (especially in HOTT). But that is the reverse of the link that you're claiming. > The manipulation of formulas and proofs fits very well with the imperative approach, only no category theory is required, and core concepts such as simulation/trace-inclusion arise naturally without need for complex embeddings. Again, no category theory is required (though I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing?) to develop a prover like Coq or TLA+. If you're bringing simulation and trace-inclusion into this, then you're just saying the stateful, imperative approach is well adapted to working with stateful, imperative systems. I agree, but how exactly does that equate to that approach having any benefit whatsoever for formalizing the rest of mathematics?
- pron 10y ago
  > Okay, yes, but 99% of mathematics isn't deterministic state machines. So again, pure functions can model a lot of things, but deterministic state machines are foreign to the way people think about mathematics in most instances. Sorry, I wasn't clear. 99% of mathematics isn't Schrödinger's equation either, but Schrödinger's equation is still relatively simple math. State machines are simple math, but math isn't state machines. State machines are the concept that underlies computation, and simple math is used to reason about them. > I just mentioned Coq because it's one of the better known ones. ... and one of the least used ones, at least where software is concerned. There's a reason for that: it's very hard (let alone for engineers) to reason about computer programs in Coq; it's much easier (and done by engineers) to reason about computer programs in TLA+ (or SPIN or B-Method or Alloy). > which is hardly exotic in 2016 I think it's safe to say that most mathematicians in 2016 -- let alone software engineers -- are pretty unfamiliar with category theory, and have hardly heard of type theory. Engineers, however, already have nearly all the math they need to reason about programs and algorithm in the common mathematical way (they just may not know it, which is why I so obnoxiously bring it up whenever I can, to offset the notion that is way overrepresented here on HN that believes that "PFP is the way to mathematically reason about programs". It is just one way, not even the most common one, and certainly not the easiest one). > but implementing and using these systems requires no category theory. Right, but we're talking about foundational principles of computation. Those systems are predicated on denotational semantics, which is a formalization that identifies a computation with the function it computes (yes, some of those systems also have definitional equality, but still, denotational semantics is the core principle), rather than view the computation as built up from functions (in fact, this is precisely what monads do and why they're needed, as the basic denotational semantics fails to capture many important computations). This formalization isn't any better or worse (each could be defined in terms of the other), but it is more complicated, and is unnecessary to mathematically reason about programs. It does require CT concepts like monads to precisely denote certain computations. > If you're bringing simulation and trace-inclusion into this, then you're just saying the stateful, imperative approach is well adapted to working with stateful, imperative systems. There are no "imperative systems". Imperative/functional is a feature of the language used to describe a computation, not the computation itself (although, colloquially we say functional/imperative algorithms to refer to those algorithms that commonly arise when using the different linguistic approaches). The algorithm is always a state machine (assuming no textual deconstructionism) -- whether expressed in a language like Haskell or in a language like BASIC -- and that algorithm can be reasoned about with pretty basic math. And I am not talking about a "stateful" approach, but a basic mathematical approach based on state machines (a non-stateful pure functional program also ultimately defines a state machine). > I agree, but how exactly does that equate to that approach having any benefit whatsoever for formalizing the rest of mathematics? Oh, I wasn't talking about a new way to formalize the foundation of mathematics (which, I've been told, is the goal of type theory), nor do I think that a new foundation for math is required to mathematically reason about computation (just as it isn't necessary to reason about physics). I just pointed out that algorithms have a very elegant mathematical formulation in "simple" math, which is unrelated to PFP. This formulation serves as the basis for most formal reasoning of computer programs.