6 ms·

It's correct only using your definitions and axioms. Other definitions and axioms can and do come to other conclusions. Your refusal to acknowledge that other d

It's correct only using your definitions and axioms. Other definitions and axioms can and do come to other conclusions. Your refusal to acknowledge that other definitions and axioms even exist is what is earning you the ire you are experiencing.

catnaroek 10y ago
> Your definition of a "value" seems to be a strictly immutable, functional-oriented definition. The very question of mutability only makes sense for objects that reside in computer memory. Asking whether values mutate is as meaningless as asking what the color of your feelings is. > the ire you are experiencing. I'm deliberately provoking it.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > I'm deliberately provoking it. I'll just start flagging you for trolling then. It's one thing to attempt to have a meaningful discussion and unintentionally provoke ire. Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I guess qwerty was spot on with the Randall Monroe quote.
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    > Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I don't think I was being obtuse. I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) the reaction I got, and decided that it don't mind it.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      ...And that should have taught you something: it should have taught you that the language you're using isn't being readily understood, and that you need to either explain it, or change it.
    - Bjartr 10y ago
      Why do you not mind being poorly understood? The goal of effective communication is to have others understand you. Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing?
      - catnaroek 10y ago
        > Why do you not mind being poorly understood? What I said I didn't mind is the “ire you are experiencing”. It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. > Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing? I'm pointing to the distinction between values and objects pretty clearly: (0) Objects exist in memory. Values exist in the language's semantics, not in computer memory, but representations of values exist in computer memory. Furthermore, objects exist in memory exactly once, but a value may be represented in memory any number of times. (1) It doesn't make sense to distinguish between representations of the same value. If a program treats two memory blobs differently, their contents represent different values, period. (The converse is not true, of course.) (2) The language implementation has absolute freedom to represent values as it wishes, as long as (1) isn't violated. But this isn't the first time I've said all of this in this thread.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        >It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. Use alternate terminology, or explain yourself the first time you use it in a thread - otherwise, we'll all be confused. I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. This brings to mind another Munroe quote: "You're like the religious zealots who are burdened by their superiority with the sad duty of decrying the obvious moral decay of each new generation. And you're just as wrong."
    - tome 10y ago
      > I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) If you're going to argue here about programming languages terminology it behooves you get terminology from other fields correct.
      - catnaroek 10y ago
        I got the terminology right. The term “value” means what I mean by it, not what qwerty means by it. Check TAPL, pages 34 and 57.
        tome 10y ago
        I'm talking about "expectation".
        catnaroek 10y ago
        Oh, sorry. I was implicitly making the following assumptions: (0) Reactions can be quantified - assigned numerical values, roughly corresponding to our intuition of a “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” reaction. (1) The possible reactions can be meaningfully averaged, and the result can be interpreted as a reaction value as well. So by “expectation”, I meant “expected value”, in the usual sense. If your objection is that “expectation” can't be used as this, I have evidence that suggests otherwise: (0) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/readings/MIT18_05S14_Reading6a.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to... (1) https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf
        tome 10y ago
        It's rather non-standard to say "I expected" in this sense but since you've gone to the trouble to define your terminology and back up your claim, fair enough!
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago

catnaroek 10y ago

> Your definition of a "value" seems to be a strictly immutable, functional-oriented definition. The very question of mutability only makes sense for objects that reside in computer memory. Asking whether values mutate is as meaningless as asking what the color of your feelings is. > the ire you are experiencing. I'm deliberately provoking it.

jdmichal 10y ago
> I'm deliberately provoking it. I'll just start flagging you for trolling then. It's one thing to attempt to have a meaningful discussion and unintentionally provoke ire. Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I guess qwerty was spot on with the Randall Monroe quote.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  > Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I don't think I was being obtuse. I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) the reaction I got, and decided that it don't mind it.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    ...And that should have taught you something: it should have taught you that the language you're using isn't being readily understood, and that you need to either explain it, or change it.
  - Bjartr 10y ago
    Why do you not mind being poorly understood? The goal of effective communication is to have others understand you. Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing?
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      > Why do you not mind being poorly understood? What I said I didn't mind is the “ire you are experiencing”. It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. > Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing? I'm pointing to the distinction between values and objects pretty clearly: (0) Objects exist in memory. Values exist in the language's semantics, not in computer memory, but representations of values exist in computer memory. Furthermore, objects exist in memory exactly once, but a value may be represented in memory any number of times. (1) It doesn't make sense to distinguish between representations of the same value. If a program treats two memory blobs differently, their contents represent different values, period. (The converse is not true, of course.) (2) The language implementation has absolute freedom to represent values as it wishes, as long as (1) isn't violated. But this isn't the first time I've said all of this in this thread.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        >It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. Use alternate terminology, or explain yourself the first time you use it in a thread - otherwise, we'll all be confused. I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. This brings to mind another Munroe quote: "You're like the religious zealots who are burdened by their superiority with the sad duty of decrying the obvious moral decay of each new generation. And you're just as wrong."
  - tome 10y ago
    > I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) If you're going to argue here about programming languages terminology it behooves you get terminology from other fields correct.
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      I got the terminology right. The term “value” means what I mean by it, not what qwerty means by it. Check TAPL, pages 34 and 57.
      - tome 10y ago
        I'm talking about "expectation".
        catnaroek 10y ago
        Oh, sorry. I was implicitly making the following assumptions: (0) Reactions can be quantified - assigned numerical values, roughly corresponding to our intuition of a “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” reaction. (1) The possible reactions can be meaningfully averaged, and the result can be interpreted as a reaction value as well. So by “expectation”, I meant “expected value”, in the usual sense. If your objection is that “expectation” can't be used as this, I have evidence that suggests otherwise: (0) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/readings/MIT18_05S14_Reading6a.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to... (1) https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf
        tome 10y ago
        It's rather non-standard to say "I expected" in this sense but since you've gone to the trouble to define your terminology and back up your claim, fair enough!
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago