3 ms·
We might have different definitions my good sir. Granted I don't have a PhD in math and my math stopped at a masters. To me formalization is theorems and proofs
by gwoolhurme 3y ago
We might have different definitions my good sir. Granted I don't have a PhD in math and my math stopped at a masters. To me formalization is theorems and proofs, which are 100% comprehensible to humans. For reference: http://www.vdash.org/formal/#math http://www.vdash.org/formal/#math
Everything in that link looks like programming, especially when you consider something like Haskell. Even formalism as a philosophy tries to add logic to natural language it self. So I am not sure where I am fetishizing what I saw at university. Care to explain without the snark?
- grt_thr 3y agoThat is a proof of the same way that print("Hello World") is an executable.
- gwoolhurme 3y agoI never said they were proofs right? I am still confused. I was talking about foramalizing and how at least to me I see programming in it. Even something extremely complex like "The Strong Perfect Graph Theorem" is still readable and reads like english+programming. That's why I said haskell looks like it comes out of a discrete mathbook. I am not sure what your point is or where my fetishization is coming from.
- cubefox 3y agoI think the previous comment wasn't so much disagreeing as adding a related thought.
- gwoolhurme 3y agoAh I did say they were proofs... that is my fault, what I mean to say is that formalization is the way they are written, is very much a language. Either way. Not sure where the venom was coming from
- grt_thr 3y agoPointing out that people are impressed by form and not substance isn't venom, it's the first step to bringing mathematics into the 20th century.