4 ms·

>The observer effect in physics can be trivially expressed and evaluated as a mutating getter in any programming language. >It cannot be expressed in any Mathe

>The observer effect in physics can be trivially expressed and evaluated as a mutating getter in any programming language. >It cannot be expressed in any Mathematical grammar. What on earth are you trying to say...? There is a whole mathematical treatment of quantum mechanics, measurement effect included (several treatments). More to the point, any algorithm can be formalised in e.g. a Turing machine, or any other equivalent universal model of computation. So there's literally nothing in "computer science" that you cannot express in mathematics. This reeks of Dunning-Kruger: you don't even know enough about what you're talking about to realise how badly little sense you're making. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with a topic before opining about it. I'll be hard-pressed to believe you ever opened a physics textbook in your life after high school. Why then do you feel the need to talk blindly about it? I never opened a book about aeronautics in my life, therefore I would never presume to lecture anybody about plane-building... That would just be arrogance.

jshevek 7y ago
>This reeks of Dunning-Kruger: you don't even know enough about what you're talking about to realise how badly little sense you're making. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with a topic before opining about it. I'll be hard-pressed to believe you ever opened a physics textbook in your life after high school. Why then do you feel the need to talk blindly about it? You can just address their ideas, this extra stuff isn't helpful.
ukj 7y ago
>Any algorithm can be formalised in e.g. a Turing machine, or any other equivalent universal model of computation Quoting http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/sometimes-all-functions-are-continuous/ http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/sometimes-all-functions-ar... >>The lesson is for those “experts” who “know” that all reasonable models of computation are equivalent to Turing machines. This is true if one looks just at functions from N toN. However, at higher types, such as the type of our function m, questions of representation become important, and it does matter which model of computation is used. Mathematics only proves things up to isomorphism. Two things that are theoretically equivalent are not necessarily empirically equivalent. Or, just the good ol' adage: in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. >So there's literally nothing in "computer science" that you cannot express in mathematics. In addition to the examples in the blog post linked above, you cannot express a mutating getter in Mathematics. Go ahead. I'll wait.
- jshevek 7y ago
  Please don't use that style of quotation for non-code. It is awful on mobile.
- Jenz 7y ago
  > In addition to the examples in the blog post linked above, you cannot express a mutating getter in Mathematics. Neither can you express foobarish bamboozles...
  - ukj 7y ago
    I can express a mutating getter in any modern programming language much like you just expressed “foobarish bambozles” in English. Q.E.D
- diegoperini 7y ago
  Mutating getter? Sounds like a generator function that yields. Or a pseudo random number generator implemented with a monad (WorldState, Value). Or any tail-recursive non-void function that carry state without loss? I'm definitely not an expert but aren't irrational numbers are the best examples to show that these types of constructs already exist in math? You can't calculate them in finite amount of time. You use an analytical formula or series expansions to get the nth term instead.
  - ukj 7y ago
    Assume that it is a black box to you, even though it is a white box to me. Every time you call read() on it - you get a different result. It has side-effects. This violates the “purity” of Mathematics.
    - diegoperini 7y ago
      I just explained three different models to represent side-effects without leaving the purity. I'm not sure if you are trolling, throwing random big words or simply have a really misguided impression about how computer science connects with math.
gaze 7y ago
it's like... kinda true that the observer effect can be expressed as a mutating getter... but that isn't useful. The idea that it can't be expressed is really ignorant.

jshevek 7y ago

>This reeks of Dunning-Kruger: you don't even know enough about what you're talking about to realise how badly little sense you're making. I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with a topic before opining about it. I'll be hard-pressed to believe you ever opened a physics textbook in your life after high school. Why then do you feel the need to talk blindly about it? You can just address their ideas, this extra stuff isn't helpful.

ukj 7y ago

>Any algorithm can be formalised in e.g. a Turing machine, or any other equivalent universal model of computation Quoting http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/sometimes-all-functions-are-continuous/ http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/sometimes-all-functions-ar... >>The lesson is for those “experts” who “know” that all reasonable models of computation are equivalent to Turing machines. This is true if one looks just at functions from N toN. However, at higher types, such as the type of our function m, questions of representation become important, and it does matter which model of computation is used. Mathematics only proves things up to isomorphism. Two things that are theoretically equivalent are not necessarily empirically equivalent. Or, just the good ol' adage: in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. >So there's literally nothing in "computer science" that you cannot express in mathematics. In addition to the examples in the blog post linked above, you cannot express a mutating getter in Mathematics. Go ahead. I'll wait.

jshevek 7y ago
Please don't use that style of quotation for non-code. It is awful on mobile.
Jenz 7y ago
> In addition to the examples in the blog post linked above, you cannot express a mutating getter in Mathematics. Neither can you express foobarish bamboozles...
- ukj 7y ago
  I can express a mutating getter in any modern programming language much like you just expressed “foobarish bambozles” in English. Q.E.D
diegoperini 7y ago
Mutating getter? Sounds like a generator function that yields. Or a pseudo random number generator implemented with a monad (WorldState, Value). Or any tail-recursive non-void function that carry state without loss? I'm definitely not an expert but aren't irrational numbers are the best examples to show that these types of constructs already exist in math? You can't calculate them in finite amount of time. You use an analytical formula or series expansions to get the nth term instead.
- ukj 7y ago
  Assume that it is a black box to you, even though it is a white box to me. Every time you call read() on it - you get a different result. It has side-effects. This violates the “purity” of Mathematics.
  - diegoperini 7y ago
    I just explained three different models to represent side-effects without leaving the purity. I'm not sure if you are trolling, throwing random big words or simply have a really misguided impression about how computer science connects with math.

gaze 7y ago

it's like... kinda true that the observer effect can be expressed as a mutating getter... but that isn't useful. The idea that it can't be expressed is really ignorant.