4 ms·

welcome to writing? i don't understand this kind of pedantry: it is very clear from context that is not going to be a formal spec or formal proof and therefore

welcome to writing? i don't understand this kind of pedantry: it is very clear from context that is not going to be a formal spec or formal proof and therefore the word formal here is being used informally... or just ya know according to its conventional understanding. did you really get to the end of article before you realized this wasn't going to be about formal proofs/specs?

tofof 8y ago
Did you really get to the end of the first paragraph before you decided this wasn't going to be about formal proofs/specs? "It will then formalize the Two Generals' Problem and formally prove the impossibility."
- mlevental 8y ago
  >Did you really get to the end of the first paragraph before you decided this wasn't going to be about formal proofs/specs? yes because i have heard of the word juxtaposition >This guide will introduce the Two Generals' Problem and give an [INTUITIVE] explanation for why finding a solution to the problem is impossible. It will then formalize the Two Generals' Problem and formally prove the impossibility.
pron 8y ago
It's like writing "pusillanimous" when you want to say "nice" -- the chosen word is both unnecessarily fancy and wrong. I'm not aware that this has become the conventional understanding just because some people here and there make this mistake. It's fine for words to acquire new meaning, sometimes even an opposite one like in the case of "literally," but even in that case the word serves some purpose (that of emphasis). So if you tell me that the word "formal" has acquired the meaning informal, I would still ask what purpose does "formal" serve here? What's wrong with just saying proof? And yes, I did need to scroll to the section about the proof to see that the article does not, in fact, provide a formal proof. I agree that this is pedantry, but in this case the article emphasizes formalization so much that it seems like it's a central point, and yet no formalization is to be found. To me this suggests that some people may simply not know what "formal" means in this context, which is fine, but since this is an important concept in computer science, I thought it is worth pointing out.

tofof 8y ago

Did you really get to the end of the first paragraph before you decided this wasn't going to be about formal proofs/specs? "It will then formalize the Two Generals' Problem and formally prove the impossibility."

mlevental 8y ago
>Did you really get to the end of the first paragraph before you decided this wasn't going to be about formal proofs/specs? yes because i have heard of the word juxtaposition >This guide will introduce the Two Generals' Problem and give an [INTUITIVE] explanation for why finding a solution to the problem is impossible. It will then formalize the Two Generals' Problem and formally prove the impossibility.

pron 8y ago

It's like writing "pusillanimous" when you want to say "nice" -- the chosen word is both unnecessarily fancy and wrong. I'm not aware that this has become the conventional understanding just because some people here and there make this mistake. It's fine for words to acquire new meaning, sometimes even an opposite one like in the case of "literally," but even in that case the word serves some purpose (that of emphasis). So if you tell me that the word "formal" has acquired the meaning informal, I would still ask what purpose does "formal" serve here? What's wrong with just saying proof? And yes, I did need to scroll to the section about the proof to see that the article does not, in fact, provide a formal proof. I agree that this is pedantry, but in this case the article emphasizes formalization so much that it seems like it's a central point, and yet no formalization is to be found. To me this suggests that some people may simply not know what "formal" means in this context, which is fine, but since this is an important concept in computer science, I thought it is worth pointing out.