3 ms·

By that same logic you could also say that language is math. In fact I think your quote kind of disproves your point because the content/state of a program is s

by xmprt 1y ago

By that same logic you could also say that language is math. In fact I think your quote kind of disproves your point because the content/state of a program is super important in coding more than the form. Coding used to be very close to pure math (many early computer science classes were taught in the Math Department in universities) but it has been so far abstracted from that to the point that it is its own thing and is as close to math as any other subject is.

godelski 1y ago
> By that same logic you could also say that language is math Not quite, but the inverse is true. The language to math direction doesn't work because a lack of formalism. I can state incomprehensible sentences or words. (There's an advantage to that in some cases!) but when you do that with code you get errors and even you do it with math its just that there's no compiler or interpreter that tells at you
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  >I can state incomprehensible sentences or words. since you can express paradoxes with match, perhaps not that different.
  - godelski 1y ago
    I think you misunderstand what "paradox" means. While it can mean "self-contradictory" it can also mean "contrary to one's expectation." Math uses both, but in very different contexts. The contradiction is used in proof formulation, specifically to invalidate some claim. I don't think this is what you're implying. The latter is what it contextually sounds like you're stating; things like the Banach-Tarksi Paradox. There's no self-contradiction in that, but it is an unexpected result and points to the need to refine certain things like the ZFC set theory. I'd also stress that there are true statements which cannot be proven through axiomatic systems. The Halting Problem is an example of what Godel proved. But that's not contradictory, even if unexpected or frustrating.

by xmprt 1y ago

godelski 1y ago

> By that same logic you could also say that language is math Not quite, but the inverse is true. The language to math direction doesn't work because a lack of formalism. I can state incomprehensible sentences or words. (There's an advantage to that in some cases!) but when you do that with code you get errors and even you do it with math its just that there's no compiler or interpreter that tells at you

bryanrasmussen 1y ago
>I can state incomprehensible sentences or words. since you can express paradoxes with match, perhaps not that different.
- godelski 1y ago
  I think you misunderstand what "paradox" means. While it can mean "self-contradictory" it can also mean "contrary to one's expectation." Math uses both, but in very different contexts. The contradiction is used in proof formulation, specifically to invalidate some claim. I don't think this is what you're implying. The latter is what it contextually sounds like you're stating; things like the Banach-Tarksi Paradox. There's no self-contradiction in that, but it is an unexpected result and points to the need to refine certain things like the ZFC set theory. I'd also stress that there are true statements which cannot be proven through axiomatic systems. The Halting Problem is an example of what Godel proved. But that's not contradictory, even if unexpected or frustrating.