4 ms·

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.

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.
- espadrine 6y ago
  The initial poster is likely weary. I’ll try my hand exactly once. I know it can be frustrating for both parties, because sadly, to know that an expert is right, you need a bit of expertise. Here we go. Symmetries are useful to understand a domain. If you have one, you know that a point on the left will appear on the right. So question like “but how do you know that there really is a point on the right?” is simply because you know the proof of symmetry. The answer to “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?” is in the same way. They mention Curry-Howard correspondence: I don’t want to lose too much time on it, but yes, it is a symmetry, so the point on the left called Nock has a corresponding point on the right called lambda calculus with the same properties; and the claims made by Nock’s author about there being no symmetry are disproved by old proofs. In fact, there are a lot of 50-year-old systems that fulfill Nock’s goals. Since it is an old field, the majority of them had time to develop into practical systems that are much, much clearer and less esoteric. Which brings me to the goal of Nock. Why do something esoteric when a bit of field knowledge shows the complexity is unwarranted? One possibility is NIH. A more likely explanation is getting users into the sunk cost fallacy. Why more likely? Because this technique has been used repeatedly by the author in other fields, like his political essays. I am not the first to have that thought; a quick Google search brings this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6qPextf9KyWLFJ53j/why-is-mencius-moldbug-so-popular-on-less-wrong-answer-he-s https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6qPextf9KyWLFJ53j/why-is-men... It does work. So many pixels spilt over an awkward language named after a famous anti-semite admired by the author, Albert Jay Nock.

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.

espadrine 6y ago
The initial poster is likely weary. I’ll try my hand exactly once. I know it can be frustrating for both parties, because sadly, to know that an expert is right, you need a bit of expertise. Here we go. Symmetries are useful to understand a domain. If you have one, you know that a point on the left will appear on the right. So question like “but how do you know that there really is a point on the right?” is simply because you know the proof of symmetry. The answer to “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?” is in the same way. They mention Curry-Howard correspondence: I don’t want to lose too much time on it, but yes, it is a symmetry, so the point on the left called Nock has a corresponding point on the right called lambda calculus with the same properties; and the claims made by Nock’s author about there being no symmetry are disproved by old proofs. In fact, there are a lot of 50-year-old systems that fulfill Nock’s goals. Since it is an old field, the majority of them had time to develop into practical systems that are much, much clearer and less esoteric. Which brings me to the goal of Nock. Why do something esoteric when a bit of field knowledge shows the complexity is unwarranted? One possibility is NIH. A more likely explanation is getting users into the sunk cost fallacy. Why more likely? Because this technique has been used repeatedly by the author in other fields, like his political essays. I am not the first to have that thought; a quick Google search brings this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6qPextf9KyWLFJ53j/why-is-mencius-moldbug-so-popular-on-less-wrong-answer-he-s https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6qPextf9KyWLFJ53j/why-is-men... It does work. So many pixels spilt over an awkward language named after a famous anti-semite admired by the author, Albert Jay Nock.