3 ms·
> You are just taking a formula out of context, omitting the plain English explanation that comes before it, which, this? "We saw earlier in the course that w
by _a_a_a_ 3y ago
> You are just taking a formula out of context, omitting the plain English explanation that comes before it,
which, this?
"We saw earlier in the course that we can curry a function. That is, given a function of type (τ 1 ×τ 2 ) → τ 3 , we can give a function of type τ 1 → τ 2 → τ 3"
That helps no-one unless you have some serious hand-holding. I know the type of curry, I've written curry/bind/whateveer in C#, scala, JS and likely others. I have a background in this. It's not 'accessible' to mere mortals and even I'm not familiar with some of the notation here. Stop pretending it's just laziness on other people's part.
(oh yeah, did I forget to put constructive logic in my list above? Brouwer's intuitionism? FFS get real, I never even heard of that until a few years ago)
- zozbot234 3y agoIt is accessible if you know a few bits of syntax, such as → being right-associative so τ1 → τ2 → τ3 means τ1 → (τ2 → τ3). And others such as "f: X → Y declares f as a function from X's to Y's." which you can find in any math textbook. The point of using such a terse notation rather than faffing around with Callable[…] is to make it possible to work with larger examples without getting bogged down in the verbiage. It's why we use symbols to solve equations in K-12 math.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoThe curse of intelligent people, the one thing they can't understand; never being able to understand that other people don't understand. There's something of Cassandra about it.
- sordina 3y agoIf someone can learn C type syntax this is MUCH simpler. That doesn't mean you don't have to spend a little bit of time learning how it works, but it is not some kind of number-theory level maths construction only accessible to savants.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoSee my reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37855705