4 ms·

I think you've got me wrong on this—the idea that I'm "relying" on "quick skims" and the POV of an "impartial reader," would imply that I'm somehow using these

I think you've got me wrong on this—the idea that I'm "relying" on "quick skims" and the POV of an "impartial reader," would imply that I'm somehow using these things against you. I literally am an impartial reader trying to understand this, who spent a little time reading a resource you pointed me at. If I missed what you wanted me to discover in the resource, you could just highlight it here. But instead you've chosen to question my competence and make another series of ungrounded derogatory assertions about the tech. Now including some mistakes, or at least overly uncharitable interpretations that are useless to an impartial reader: > This is hilarious considering Nock is, in fact, esoteric. It's esoteric sure, but it seems like his usage here refers to Esoteric Languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language) —which has a separate meaning (e.g. languages "as a proof of concept, as software art,"). That seems to be the whole point when he compares it to e.g. lambda calculus: he is maximizing practicality over mathematical elegance. So it makes perfect sense to point out that while it's esoteric it's not an Esoteric Language. > This does not mean anything. Again, if you take an uncharitable extreme, I agree: it's basically a meaningless thing to say. But if I wanted to be charitable I could come up with several ways of interpreting it. > SK combinators are also very comparable to lambda calculus Yes, I got the sense he was using them pretty much interchangeably here, using SK combinators as an example of an esoteric language, and in the next sentence he prefers "lambda calculus" because its a formal system in mathematical logic rather than a computational system, and the whole purpose of the sentence is to make a distinction between software foundations vs. mathematical foundations. Unless you show an interest in exchanging ideas over rhetoric in your reply—don't expect any further responses from me.

platinumrad 6y ago
You: Can you tell me why this is interesting? Them: It's not interesting. You: Idk this vague sentence sounds kind of interesting to me. Can you tell me why this is interesting? Them: Trust me it's not interesting.
- westoncb 6y ago
  It seems like you jumped into the conversation part way. Here is my actual opening: > Just out of curiosity, have you verified in some way that your alternative is legitimate? The entire conversation has been me trying to to get the other dude to verify (unsuccessfully) a claim he made in the opening comment. A more accurate re-cap: ------ Them: Nock is pointless, you can just use X Me: How do you know X would work for all Urbit's requirements? Them: Of course it would! Nock is pointless. Read this article. Me: I couldn't find anything in the article to support your claim. Them: You didn't read the article correctly.
  - xkapastel 6y ago
    Wow...we have very different views of this conversation :)
  - RobertKerans 6y ago
    From an outside perspective, that's really not how that conversation came across
xkapastel 6y ago
I'm not questioning your competence, most people have not implemented a PL before. It's not a question of competence, it's a question of specialized knowledge. > It's esoteric sure, but it seems like his usage here refers to Esoteric Languages Yes, that's the sense that I meant it in. Nock is an esoteric language just like those others on that website. > he is maximizing practicality over mathematical elegance. Nock is not practical. He is certainly not maximizing practicality by making a combinatory logic that can only increment integers and then recognizing and "accelerating" a particular implementation of decrement! Let's look at Nock: ?[a b] => 0 ?a => 1 ^[a b] => ^[a b] ^a => (a + 1) =[a a] => 0 =[a b] => 1 =a => =a /[1 a] => a /[2 a b] => a /[3 a b] => b /[(a + a) b] => /[2 /[a b]] /[(a + a + 1) b] => /[3 /[a b]] /a => /a *[a 0 b] => /[b a] *[a 1 b] => b *[a 2 b c d] => *[a 3 [0 1] 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b] *[a 3 b] => **[a b] *[a 4 b] => ?*[a b] *[a 5 b] => ^*[a b] *[a 6 b] => =*[a b] *[a [b c] d] => [*[a b c] *[a d]] *a => *a This is what I mean by being too charitable. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is practical about Nock. > because its a formal system in mathematical logic rather than a computational system I really don't think this means anything. The lambda calculus is one of the paradigmatic computational systems, and SK combinators are closely related. And it turns out formal systems in mathematical logic are also related through the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence. So there's no meaningful distinction between these things. > I think you've got me wrong on this—the idea that I'm "relying" on "quick skims" and the POV of an "impartial reader," would imply that I'm somehow using these things against you. I literally am an impartial reader trying to understand this, who spent a little time reading a resource you pointed me at. No, what I'm saying is that, as an impartial reader, you are giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt, and also not spending a lot of time with it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means you can get taken for a ride by people who are making a smokescreen.
- westoncb 6y ago
  Okay, I'll try to be charitable with you here and assume you've just missed this. The problem with claims like: > Nock is not practical. He is certainly not maximizing practicality by making a combinatory logic that can only increment integers and then recognizing and "accelerating" a particular implementation of decrement! Is that you are evaluating a component of a larger system in isolation. The form of your argument is that this component, which is a language, has obvious deficiencies/impracticalities that can be established in terms of the language itself and how it relates to other languages. But this doesn't take into account how the language (which is the component I spoke of) relates to the system in which it's embedded. The appearance of impracticality is often present in foundational systems. How easy would it be do use your same form of argument and deride the Peano axioms as obviously impractical because: look how much work it is to do arithmetic with a 'successor function'—ridiculous! (i.e. the 'impracticality' depends completely on what you're trying to do with it) This was what I was trying to investigate from the beginning: how have you verified that Nock's peculiarities don't have legitimate reasons in the context of the system of which it is a component? If you review our conversation, you'll see that's what I was trying to figure out since my very first statement—and to this point, you have still not addressed it.

platinumrad 6y ago

You: Can you tell me why this is interesting? Them: It's not interesting. You: Idk this vague sentence sounds kind of interesting to me. Can you tell me why this is interesting? Them: Trust me it's not interesting.

westoncb 6y ago
It seems like you jumped into the conversation part way. Here is my actual opening: > Just out of curiosity, have you verified in some way that your alternative is legitimate? The entire conversation has been me trying to to get the other dude to verify (unsuccessfully) a claim he made in the opening comment. A more accurate re-cap: ------ Them: Nock is pointless, you can just use X Me: How do you know X would work for all Urbit's requirements? Them: Of course it would! Nock is pointless. Read this article. Me: I couldn't find anything in the article to support your claim. Them: You didn't read the article correctly.
- xkapastel 6y ago
  Wow...we have very different views of this conversation :)
- RobertKerans 6y ago
  From an outside perspective, that's really not how that conversation came across

xkapastel 6y ago

I'm not questioning your competence, most people have not implemented a PL before. It's not a question of competence, it's a question of specialized knowledge. > It's esoteric sure, but it seems like his usage here refers to Esoteric Languages Yes, that's the sense that I meant it in. Nock is an esoteric language just like those others on that website. > he is maximizing practicality over mathematical elegance. Nock is not practical. He is certainly not maximizing practicality by making a combinatory logic that can only increment integers and then recognizing and "accelerating" a particular implementation of decrement! Let's look at Nock: ?[a b] => 0 ?a => 1 ^[a b] => ^[a b] ^a => (a + 1) =[a a] => 0 =[a b] => 1 =a => =a /[1 a] => a /[2 a b] => a /[3 a b] => b /[(a + a) b] => /[2 /[a b]] /[(a + a + 1) b] => /[3 /[a b]] /a => /a *[a 0 b] => /[b a] *[a 1 b] => b *[a 2 b c d] => *[a 3 [0 1] 3 [1 c d] [1 0] 3 [1 2 3] [1 0] 5 5 b] *[a 3 b] => **[a b] *[a 4 b] => ?*[a b] *[a 5 b] => ^*[a b] *[a 6 b] => =*[a b] *[a [b c] d] => [*[a b c] *[a d]] *a => *a This is what I mean by being too charitable. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is practical about Nock. > because its a formal system in mathematical logic rather than a computational system I really don't think this means anything. The lambda calculus is one of the paradigmatic computational systems, and SK combinators are closely related. And it turns out formal systems in mathematical logic are also related through the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence. So there's no meaningful distinction between these things. > I think you've got me wrong on this—the idea that I'm "relying" on "quick skims" and the POV of an "impartial reader," would imply that I'm somehow using these things against you. I literally am an impartial reader trying to understand this, who spent a little time reading a resource you pointed me at. No, what I'm saying is that, as an impartial reader, you are giving them too much of the benefit of the doubt, and also not spending a lot of time with it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it means you can get taken for a ride by people who are making a smokescreen.

westoncb 6y ago
Okay, I'll try to be charitable with you here and assume you've just missed this. The problem with claims like: > Nock is not practical. He is certainly not maximizing practicality by making a combinatory logic that can only increment integers and then recognizing and "accelerating" a particular implementation of decrement! Is that you are evaluating a component of a larger system in isolation. The form of your argument is that this component, which is a language, has obvious deficiencies/impracticalities that can be established in terms of the language itself and how it relates to other languages. But this doesn't take into account how the language (which is the component I spoke of) relates to the system in which it's embedded. The appearance of impracticality is often present in foundational systems. How easy would it be do use your same form of argument and deride the Peano axioms as obviously impractical because: look how much work it is to do arithmetic with a 'successor function'—ridiculous! (i.e. the 'impracticality' depends completely on what you're trying to do with it) This was what I was trying to investigate from the beginning: how have you verified that Nock's peculiarities don't have legitimate reasons in the context of the system of which it is a component? If you review our conversation, you'll see that's what I was trying to figure out since my very first statement—and to this point, you have still not addressed it.