3 ms·

They're also easily accessible in Haskell from package Data.Number.CReal [1] that implements the ideas in this paper [2]. [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/packa

by tromp 5y ago

They're also easily accessible in Haskell from package Data.Number.CReal [1] that implements the ideas in this paper [2]. [1] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/numbers-3000.2.0.2/docs/Data-Number-CReal.html https://hackage.haskell.org/package/numbers-3000.2.0.2/docs/... [2] https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/29853/29853.pdf https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/29853/298...

foxes 5y ago
Lol at the proofs that are simply the words "trivial", "easy" etc. Why is it so hard to just write it out fully, in a completed paper -- it would barely add any length. I agree I may find them easy, but the attitude is harmful. Besides after doing any sort of functional programming the whole paper is obvious, so why even bother :). The same brain rot extends to more complicated situations.
- choeger 5y ago
  I don't know about this particular paper, but there's a) usually a page limit when publishing and b) definitely a limit to a reader's patience. So filling a paper with trivial or technical proofs is not good form. That being said, many scientific papers would benefit from being rewritten in a style that focuses on the reader and readability. That's only understandable: when writing for a journal or conference, there's a lot of time pressure and your audience are bespoke experts on the matter at hand. But there's only a slight chance your paper becomes important to a broader audience. I wonder if one could form a business of rewriting classic papers of CS and math.
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    A business? Maybe not, but certainly many a masters degree has been had doing just that.
  - fennecs 5y ago
    For b) most people do not read a paper linearly, you look at maybe the intro, skim around a bit, and then maybe go to an appropriate section. If you are really invested then maybe you go through the whole thing. A graph would be a much better format. A bespoke expert with time pressure is not going to comb over the whole thing, they will pick out the bits they care about.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  For the intended audience of a paper, many things are considered trivial or easy. The attitude may be harmful when teaching(if you’re unaware of what the students find trivial), but in professional communication it is a signal to the reader that they shouldn’t spend unnecessary time focusing on some (trivial or easy to verify) part of the argument.

by tromp 5y ago

foxes 5y ago

Lol at the proofs that are simply the words "trivial", "easy" etc. Why is it so hard to just write it out fully, in a completed paper -- it would barely add any length. I agree I may find them easy, but the attitude is harmful. Besides after doing any sort of functional programming the whole paper is obvious, so why even bother :). The same brain rot extends to more complicated situations.

choeger 5y ago
I don't know about this particular paper, but there's a) usually a page limit when publishing and b) definitely a limit to a reader's patience. So filling a paper with trivial or technical proofs is not good form. That being said, many scientific papers would benefit from being rewritten in a style that focuses on the reader and readability. That's only understandable: when writing for a journal or conference, there's a lot of time pressure and your audience are bespoke experts on the matter at hand. But there's only a slight chance your paper becomes important to a broader audience. I wonder if one could form a business of rewriting classic papers of CS and math.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  A business? Maybe not, but certainly many a masters degree has been had doing just that.
- fennecs 5y ago
  For b) most people do not read a paper linearly, you look at maybe the intro, skim around a bit, and then maybe go to an appropriate section. If you are really invested then maybe you go through the whole thing. A graph would be a much better format. A bespoke expert with time pressure is not going to comb over the whole thing, they will pick out the bits they care about.
l33t2328 5y ago
For the intended audience of a paper, many things are considered trivial or easy. The attitude may be harmful when teaching(if you’re unaware of what the students find trivial), but in professional communication it is a signal to the reader that they shouldn’t spend unnecessary time focusing on some (trivial or easy to verify) part of the argument.