4 ms·

> The ignorance you display here is truly breathtaking. Remember when I said "if you disagree, give me an example of such research"? Now is the time to do that

> The ignorance you display here is truly breathtaking. Remember when I said "if you disagree, give me an example of such research"? Now is the time to do that. > Here is an existence proof that you are wrong about that: No it isn't. Because they have lambda defined as an axiom. If you define lambda in terms of lists, and lists in terms of lambda, it's pretty trivial to say you have a circular reference on your hands.

lisper 2y ago
> Now is the time to do that. Sigh. https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-Press/dp/0262062798 https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-... > they have lambda defined as an axiom "They" is me -- I wrote that article. And no, "they" do not have lambda defined as an axiom. There are no axioms in that article because there are no proofs. It's just a demonstration of how you can do math using lambda calculus, with pairs being built along the way (and ultimately abandoned in favor of Church numerals) along with an actual implementation of a serializer for lambdas called lc-expand. If you don't see how that refutes your claim that "If you have a list defined "al la lambda calculus" as a lambda term, you can't really write it down fully" I'm not going to try to explain it to you. You are apparently beyond my ability to help.
- James_K 2y ago
  > https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT- https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-... That is a textbook, not research. > "They" is me -- I wrote that article. Makes sense. The HTML elements are broken in some of the code snippets by the way. A few of & scattered about the place. > There are no axioms in that article because there are no proofs. Google "Curry-Howard correspondence". Computation is defined through axioms; you cannot compute without them. > You are apparently beyond my ability to help. I think you are just incapable of reading and processing ideas from other people without insulting them due to some sort of ego-trip where you imagine you are the messiah sent from heaven to educate us poor ingrates about programming when you clearly are not. Be less obnoxious in future and more open to new ideas.
  - lisper 2y ago
    > That is a textbook, not research. Where do you think textbooks come from? Have you ever looked at a textbook? Have you noticed that textbooks typically include a section called "References" (as this one does)? What do you think that is for? > The HTML elements are broken in some of the code snippets by the way. I know. That page was just exported from MS Word. Fixing it is not high on my priority list. > you cannot compute without them. What does that have to do with the fact that the article I pointed you to has neither proofs nor axioms in it? > I think you are just incapable of reading and processing ideas from other people > Be less obnoxious in future Do you hear yourself?
    - James_K 2y ago
      > Do you hear yourself? Yes, and I'm not the one compulsively ending every comment with a jab at the other guy's intelligence. > What does that have to do with the fact that the article I pointed you to has neither proofs nor axioms in it? So because you didn't write them down, you think they don't exist? > as this one does Quite frankly, I'm not going to spend $77 and wait for shipping to find out what's in the references section of some random text book. It seems like it should be an awful lot easier to find one of these hundreds of people you know.
      - lisper 2y ago
        > because you didn't write them down, you think they don't exist? No, I just think they are irrelevant to adjudicating your claim that "If you have a list defined "al la lambda calculus" as a lambda term, you can't really write it down fully...". I've refuted you with an actual implementation (which you have obviously not even bothered to look at). The fact that my implementation could be axiomatized has nothing to do with it. > I'm not going to spend $77 and wait for shipping to find out what's in the references section of some random text book. EOPL is not "some random text book." But it doesn't really matter. Pick up any textbook you like on programming languages published in the last 40 years. I'd be surprised if you could find even one that did not reference McCarthy's original Lisp paper.

lisper 2y ago

> Now is the time to do that. Sigh. https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-Press/dp/0262062798 https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-... > they have lambda defined as an axiom "They" is me -- I wrote that article. And no, "they" do not have lambda defined as an axiom. There are no axioms in that article because there are no proofs. It's just a demonstration of how you can do math using lambda calculus, with pairs being built along the way (and ultimately abandoned in favor of Church numerals) along with an actual implementation of a serializer for lambdas called lc-expand. If you don't see how that refutes your claim that "If you have a list defined "al la lambda calculus" as a lambda term, you can't really write it down fully" I'm not going to try to explain it to you. You are apparently beyond my ability to help.

James_K 2y ago
> https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT- https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Programming-Languages-MIT-... That is a textbook, not research. > "They" is me -- I wrote that article. Makes sense. The HTML elements are broken in some of the code snippets by the way. A few of & scattered about the place. > There are no axioms in that article because there are no proofs. Google "Curry-Howard correspondence". Computation is defined through axioms; you cannot compute without them. > You are apparently beyond my ability to help. I think you are just incapable of reading and processing ideas from other people without insulting them due to some sort of ego-trip where you imagine you are the messiah sent from heaven to educate us poor ingrates about programming when you clearly are not. Be less obnoxious in future and more open to new ideas.
- lisper 2y ago
  > That is a textbook, not research. Where do you think textbooks come from? Have you ever looked at a textbook? Have you noticed that textbooks typically include a section called "References" (as this one does)? What do you think that is for? > The HTML elements are broken in some of the code snippets by the way. I know. That page was just exported from MS Word. Fixing it is not high on my priority list. > you cannot compute without them. What does that have to do with the fact that the article I pointed you to has neither proofs nor axioms in it? > I think you are just incapable of reading and processing ideas from other people > Be less obnoxious in future Do you hear yourself?
  - James_K 2y ago
    > Do you hear yourself? Yes, and I'm not the one compulsively ending every comment with a jab at the other guy's intelligence. > What does that have to do with the fact that the article I pointed you to has neither proofs nor axioms in it? So because you didn't write them down, you think they don't exist? > as this one does Quite frankly, I'm not going to spend $77 and wait for shipping to find out what's in the references section of some random text book. It seems like it should be an awful lot easier to find one of these hundreds of people you know.
    - lisper 2y ago
      > because you didn't write them down, you think they don't exist? No, I just think they are irrelevant to adjudicating your claim that "If you have a list defined "al la lambda calculus" as a lambda term, you can't really write it down fully...". I've refuted you with an actual implementation (which you have obviously not even bothered to look at). The fact that my implementation could be axiomatized has nothing to do with it. > I'm not going to spend $77 and wait for shipping to find out what's in the references section of some random text book. EOPL is not "some random text book." But it doesn't really matter. Pick up any textbook you like on programming languages published in the last 40 years. I'd be surprised if you could find even one that did not reference McCarthy's original Lisp paper.