4 ms·
Seems accessible, if you're willing to look up what what you don't understand.
by fooker 3y ago
Seems accessible, if you're willing to look up what what you don't understand.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoOh get real. I have a background in this. Lambda notation, Hoare notation (I think), 'standard' logic notation. Don't talk rubbish about 'look it up'. You need a degree to get this. Not a metaphorical degree, the real thing. Edit - and a brain bigger than mine.
- the_af 3y ago> Don't talk rubbish about 'look it up'. You need a degree to get this. Not a metaphorical degree, the real thing. You really don't need a degree. The Curry-Howard isomorphism is taught in undergraduate CS courses, to students who are simultaneously being introduced to lambda calculus. While I wouldn't say it's trivial, it's not rocket science either. Most students get it and pass the exams.
- fooker 3y agoIt's an introductory CS concept, requiring a degree would make things a bit circular...
- SilasX 3y agoUnder that constraint, what wouldn't count as an accessible exposition?
- user3939382 3y agoIt doesn’t matter what you think is accessible, it only matters if the person trying to access it thinks it’s accessible. I don’t.
- the_af 3y agoIf you can learn how to program, you can learn how to understand this. You first must learn the notation, just as when you learned "def", or "func", or "[x for x in ...]", or "int main() { ... }", or whatever your favorite language's notation is. "Accessible" doesn't necessarily mean "with just knowledge of English, you can jump to this example and immediately understand what it means". Some work is always required; accessible just means this work is not too hard. For example, Python's notation has been occasionally described as "accessible", yet I wouldn't expect my mum to immediately understand a non-trivial Python snippet (so no "print('hello')") without any previous explanations.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoQuiz: what is the opposite of patronising? Because that's what you're being. Not talking down to people but assuming more than is typical. You're clearly highly intelligent, evidently more so than I am. Additionally my mind doesn't work like yours, I'm not an abstract thinker. Plonk stuff like this in front of me and I can decipher it eventually, if I can get some clear statement of the notation and its semantics anyway, and there is stuff in there I'm not familiar with. Most people aren't abstract thinkers. They are motivated by practical concerns. I spent an enormous amount of time reading up on stuff like this and I really can't see the value to it to me as a programmer. It's deeply frustrating because I know it has value, but I just can't use it. It's interesting, I know it's useful, but I can't use it. Please allow that other people think differently and are motivated differently, and don't assume that what's easy for you is for them. I wish I had your cranium.
- zozbot234 3y ago> Most people aren't abstract thinkers. They are motivated by practical concerns. Abstract thinking is motivated by practical concerns, namely being able to think comfortably about larger problems without being limited by one's capability for complex reasoning. Most people don't do it because they aren't used to, or they have never been taught how.
- seanhunter 3y agoBy that definition "Baby Rudin"[1] is an accessible introduction to analysis as long as you're willing to look up what you don't understand (ie everything probably the first time) in some other source. [1] https://maa.org/press/maa-reviews/principles-of-mathematical-analysis https://maa.org/press/maa-reviews/principles-of-mathematical...
- fooker 3y agoRudin is not accessible if you're just looking up things. But it is if you have someone to explain stuff when you get stuff. This one doesn't need that.