3 ms·
I don't think there is a lack of a unifying theoretical framework. Both the turing machine and the lambda calculus are well understood and the foundations of co
by LeanderK 10y ago
I don't think there is a lack of a unifying theoretical framework. Both the turing machine and the lambda calculus are well understood and the foundations of computer science (and are isomorphic to each other).
I think the problem is more that a gap exists between the theoretical framework and practical programming. For example have fun trying to formally verify Javascript code!
Interesting side-note: we are currently unable to prove that there is nothing more powerful than a turing machine, i don't know if its even provable (that smells like something undecidable).
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoPhilosophical nitpick, it's fundamentally impossible to disprove non-existence of an entity.
- drdeca 10y agoHm? I'm not sure I understand. I would think that disproving the nonexistence of something would be the same as demonstrating the existence of something. That seems doable, on a sense at least. And I would think that disproving the existence of something could be done by deriving a contradiction from the assumption that the thing exists. This also seems possible. I'm guessing I am misunderstanding you in some way. Can you help me understand?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- LeanderK 10y agoThat may be the border of my english-understanding, but i can prove non-existence of certain things (are they entities?). Since this is currently my seminar-research topic: In the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory there is only one Urelement. I can prove the non-existence of another Urelement not equal to the Urelement. Since i only care about Zermelo–Fraenkel, i can define Urelemente as things inside the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory that are not sets themselves but elements of a set. And there is only one element that satisfies this definition. Every other thing is not a Urelement, since it does not satisfy the definition.
- drdeca 10y agoI don't understand. Is that the proof? I don't understand the proof. If A is an Urelement, and B is an Urelement, ... I don't see a contradiction in A is an element of C, and B is not an element of C? I mean, I defer to your research, but I do not understand...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoMy point is really about the impossibility of proving a universal negative. Russell's Teapot is instructive here.
- wuthefwasthat 10y agoYou say it's impossible to prove a universal negative? I'd love to see a proof of that
- hueving 10y agoMethinks you had a double-negative too many. Your sentence says it's impossible to prove the existence of something. Unless that's what you had intended, in which case I don't see how that's useful philosophy for this discussion.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoYou're correct, I mis-typed and it should have been proven the non-existence.