6 ms·

I don't get the impression that anyone is going into the "Maxwell's equations" part of the analogy. I didn't understand/think about it either until watching Su

by pkal 2y ago

I don't get the impression that anyone is going into the "Maxwell's equations" part of the analogy. I didn't understand/think about it either until watching Sussman's "Programming is (should be) fun!"[0], where he explains the dualism and inter-action between `eval' and `apply' is supposed to be analogous to magnetic and electric fields in Maxwell's equations. The well known Ying-Yang picture containing `eval'/`apply' can (and does in his presentation) also be drawn with \vec{B} and \vec{E}. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYzvQ1v8Ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYzvQ1v8Ww, around minute 13

082349872349872 2y ago
I tend to think of `eval` and `apply` as being fancier versions of `K` and `S`.
- vinnyvichy 2y ago
  And are the SKI uphill or downhill derivatives :)? To help you listen more productively to 孝德公 https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/678705 https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/678705 So that you can start thinking about the (full) SpeKtrum of gumi(←♦→)ity Btw, looking for a starting point to engage in patrocinium I discovered again your comment on patrocinium https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40691384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40691384 And to iterate: we need more than dichotomy (maybe three combinators?) I mean, why are you so sure that the ingredient necessary to break the "generalized (cognitive) prisoners dilemma" is not "an epsilon of payout (up to sign)"? Seems like undue arrogance to act or not act on your certainty? >We cannot rule out the possibility that this ambivalence may have been intentional on Philodemus’s part Boy someone needs to formalize this G
  - vinnyvichy 2y ago
    (c'mon bro, admit it, you have empathy for the housecats) It's more crucial to have empathy for the pigeons
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      To show the proper peristophilia (would this be the peristophilandum?): `K` forgets an argument; `eval` forgets the differences between all the syntaxes that share a semantic denotation; eg, "1*1" and "1" are very different (even their lengths are different) as strings, but they both evaluate to 1. (I believe this before-and-after-evaluation is what drives the utility of intuitionist logic in informatics; it's difficult for pre-eval `not` to be crisp) `S` grafts an argument into multiple places in an expression tree; `apply` does the same (in a lazy* language it even avoids the gratuitous eval of args); eg "fac `apply` 6" reduces directly to "1 if 6<=1 else 6 * fac `apply` (6-1)", in which the 6 has been grafted in triplicate. Does that make sense? * I guess the sage would always write code such that it doesn't matter if evaluation be eager or lazy or even somewhere in between (cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40947303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40947303 ), but I have yet to figure out how to manage that... EDIT: [pedantry] FI salonkikelpoinen started with LA sella resulting in IT sala, salone going through FR salon by way of DE salonfähig
      - vinnyvichy 2y ago
        The S part makes sense as does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_object#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_object#Examples (I am guessing their eval is your `apply`) Your explanation of K doesn't make sense ATM but I get the vague sense that K is "dual" to S, so maybe I should start with that?
        082349872349872 2y ago
        while meditating on K (but not the KKK of the Kataastaasan Kagalangalangang Katipunan): > (I am guessing their eval is your `apply`) Almost: their eval is the result of evaluating my `apply`, so "fac `apply` 6" expands to "1 if 6<=1 else 6 * fac `apply` (6-1)" which can then be evaluated to "720"; the evaluation of the application is their `eval`, for which fac:ℕ^ℕ * 6:ℕ -> 720:ℕ. (I guess my `apply`, being B^A * A -> B^1, is still isomorphic to their eval, so it does depend upon what "is" is) > And are the SKI uphill or downhill derivatives :)? With that in mind, `I` is obviously a flat derivative, that just walks along contour lines... Assuming we're following Lee's injunction to "be like water" (the path of the 10'000 things?), then `K` would be downhill, for it's always easy to throw away/project out/forget the inessential. `S` would then be uphill, but in a special way: unless we're doing something special, like S(K(SII))(S(S(KS)K)(K(SII))), we want to go "uphill", but towards a pass; we're trying to use the application to build an "activated complex"* which will then spontaneously (via evaluation) ultimately reach a value, downhill from where we started. What is `∇` in this model? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_complex ; you don't see it in the typical 1-D slice pictured, but that transition state is a saddle point in the full parameter space.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by pkal 2y ago

082349872349872 2y ago

I tend to think of `eval` and `apply` as being fancier versions of `K` and `S`.

vinnyvichy 2y ago
And are the SKI uphill or downhill derivatives :)? To help you listen more productively to 孝德公 https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/678705 https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/678705 So that you can start thinking about the (full) SpeKtrum of gumi(←♦→)ity Btw, looking for a starting point to engage in patrocinium I discovered again your comment on patrocinium https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40691384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40691384 And to iterate: we need more than dichotomy (maybe three combinators?) I mean, why are you so sure that the ingredient necessary to break the "generalized (cognitive) prisoners dilemma" is not "an epsilon of payout (up to sign)"? Seems like undue arrogance to act or not act on your certainty? >We cannot rule out the possibility that this ambivalence may have been intentional on Philodemus’s part Boy someone needs to formalize this G
- vinnyvichy 2y ago
  (c'mon bro, admit it, you have empathy for the housecats) It's more crucial to have empathy for the pigeons
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    To show the proper peristophilia (would this be the peristophilandum?): `K` forgets an argument; `eval` forgets the differences between all the syntaxes that share a semantic denotation; eg, "1*1" and "1" are very different (even their lengths are different) as strings, but they both evaluate to 1. (I believe this before-and-after-evaluation is what drives the utility of intuitionist logic in informatics; it's difficult for pre-eval `not` to be crisp) `S` grafts an argument into multiple places in an expression tree; `apply` does the same (in a lazy* language it even avoids the gratuitous eval of args); eg "fac `apply` 6" reduces directly to "1 if 6<=1 else 6 * fac `apply` (6-1)", in which the 6 has been grafted in triplicate. Does that make sense? * I guess the sage would always write code such that it doesn't matter if evaluation be eager or lazy or even somewhere in between (cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40947303 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40947303 ), but I have yet to figure out how to manage that... EDIT: [pedantry] FI salonkikelpoinen started with LA sella resulting in IT sala, salone going through FR salon by way of DE salonfähig
    - vinnyvichy 2y ago
      The S part makes sense as does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_object#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_object#Examples (I am guessing their eval is your `apply`) Your explanation of K doesn't make sense ATM but I get the vague sense that K is "dual" to S, so maybe I should start with that?
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        while meditating on K (but not the KKK of the Kataastaasan Kagalangalangang Katipunan): > (I am guessing their eval is your `apply`) Almost: their eval is the result of evaluating my `apply`, so "fac `apply` 6" expands to "1 if 6<=1 else 6 * fac `apply` (6-1)" which can then be evaluated to "720"; the evaluation of the application is their `eval`, for which fac:ℕ^ℕ * 6:ℕ -> 720:ℕ. (I guess my `apply`, being B^A * A -> B^1, is still isomorphic to their eval, so it does depend upon what "is" is) > And are the SKI uphill or downhill derivatives :)? With that in mind, `I` is obviously a flat derivative, that just walks along contour lines... Assuming we're following Lee's injunction to "be like water" (the path of the 10'000 things?), then `K` would be downhill, for it's always easy to throw away/project out/forget the inessential. `S` would then be uphill, but in a special way: unless we're doing something special, like S(K(SII))(S(S(KS)K)(K(SII))), we want to go "uphill", but towards a pass; we're trying to use the application to build an "activated complex"* which will then spontaneously (via evaluation) ultimately reach a value, downhill from where we started. What is `∇` in this model? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_complex ; you don't see it in the typical 1-D slice pictured, but that transition state is a saddle point in the full parameter space.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]