8 ms·
> You see, Mei’s fundamental misconception is that the kind of applications that we haven’t yet automated and modularized constitutes what programming is all ab
by dictum 12y ago
> You see, Mei’s fundamental misconception is that the kind of applications that we haven’t yet automated and modularized constitutes what programming is all about.
Please forgive me if I'm making the most heretical question possible, but once we reach the level of software sophistication the author hints at ("how to automate the translation of drawn sketches to good HTML and CSS") wouldn't software also be able to create and analyze mathematical theory ("conjecture, proof, and building theories")?
- saraid216 12y ago> wouldn't software also be able to create and analyze mathematical theory ("conjecture, proof, and building theories")? Already happening.
- pjmorris 12y agoe.g. Douglas Lenat's Automated Mathematician [1]... there are probably newer, better examples. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Mathematician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Mathematician
- wordplay 12y agoI'm interested in where this is going. Do you have a citation?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- john_b 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving
- mamcx 12y agoI think, that despite this be a good rebutal, it show exactly why the first article. When try to justify why programing is math then it focus in the kind of task that benefit a lot for it, then dismiss "the kind of applications that we haven’t yet automate". In real life, even in math-heavy task, the dominate factor is doing that kind of stuff. The problem that people that say "please, programming is not math!" is get rid of the elitistic mindset where if not good at math, then worse at programming, and dismiss the importance of other kind of knwoledge (art, writing, other domains, etc). Math is a part, but is not the whole. This is the message.