hzhou321

26 ms·

211.
by hzhou321 9y ago
Certainly, there are illusions around traditional martial arts , which is highlighted by this Taichi guy's agreement to such fight in the first place. However, the Chinese reaction is not simply a shock reaction (as the title "rat
212.
by hzhou321 9y ago
The first evidence is a direct evidence, but limited only to my direct channel, which is my personal experience. The second evidence is an indirect evidence. If average APL programmers can write and read programs at the same speed (characte
213.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> You don't really need monads to perform io or specify sequencing in Haskell. By implying certain logic dependence? It would be rather un-natural, which I assume is the reason for the invention of monad. > Ultimately, if you wan
214.
by hzhou321 9y ago
Some ideas on how to make it into a research paper -- add discussion on how do you trivially manage memory (avoid unnecessary allocation and copying and reversing). The original trivia idea was simply to sieve in place. So how do we do that
215.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> furthermore, while you may be able to more quickly "express an idea" in a dynamically typed language, your ability to precisely enumerate the idea will be less than a statically typed one. What we need realize is not all ide
216.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> but "subjective" is not the same as "meaningless", even less when nearly everybody that experienced it has the same assessment. Subjective on its own don't have to be meaningless. It can be subjectively meaning
217.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> I'm very confused. One second, you're literally saying Haskell was "carefully crafted", and the next, you're saying it's "the opposite of its pure vision" > It's almost as if you're
218.
by hzhou321 9y ago
By objective, you mean succinctness (which can be simply measured by program character counts)? In this regard, APL must be the most objectively expressive language. What if we run deflation over APL? It happens that I measure expressivenes
219.
by hzhou321 9y ago
... which is the opposite of its pure vision, which is why I can't help think it is a negative.
220.
by hzhou321 9y ago
I am not holding that (joke's) view, but monad came to mind as an ongoing academic research (to original Haskell at least) in order to solve a rather trivial stateful programming (trivial in an imperative style). To generalize that exa
221.
by hzhou321 9y ago
So you understand I was commenting that your post didn't really say much about Haskell (learning curve, libraries, tooling ). What you commented or implied is a bit of current Haskell culture. > I actually like C++ a lot. Haskell is
222.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> Time and experience can never cover up for lack of expressiveness Expressiveness is subjective. Experience can alter one's perception. In fact, time and experience alter the basis of comparisons, from objective comparisons to subj
223.
by hzhou321 9y ago
> 1. There is a learning curve. Time and experience can cover up anything. So this does not say much about Haskell other than it is all negative without time and experience. > 2. Haskell has some very nice libraries So does NodeJS and
224.
by hzhou321 10y ago
> How many reals do you have to skip between 0.0 and 2.0 and between 2.0 and 4.0 ? Here you sneaked the concept of reals in. Remember reals are defined on top of infinity. You can't have reals if we are still debating what infinity
225.
by hzhou321 10y ago
> but fortunately the proofs are pretty straigtforward which give a kind of «intuition» around this. It is only straightforward once you accepted infinity and all other definitions/description based on infinity. If you, like me, can
226.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Infinite defined as not finite is meaningless. For example, infinity is not really a number in a conventional sense. What it is is not clear other than it is not finite. A real number with infinite precision is equally meaningless. (Above
227.
by hzhou321 10y ago
The discussion really helps me understand the problem. Real numbers are infinity in disguise. Because infinity is not really defined, real numbers are not really defined. Just saying infinity is not finite does not make much sense (in the s
228.
by hzhou321 10y ago
You will only eventually hit any given integer after finite steps. It does not prove you will hit every positive integer. You'll miss those that one never can finish giving you -- for example, I'll start with digit 1, and I&#x27
229.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Given any finitely described real numbers, there will be a finitely described mapping map it to a unique natural number. But if you use real numbers that can never finish describing, we have to use a mapping that cannot be finished in descr
230.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Seems I agree with you (or you agree with mine) :) I don't have problem with calculus -- or I wouldn't be able to do physics. I am having problem with calculus based on infinity. > Also the idea of an actual infinity is a poeti
231.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Why should you get to choose your real number -- specifying more and more digits -- implies an un-exhaustive process, while I am not allowed to do the same? An unfair game will have unfair winners, how would it mean anything? If we both are
232.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Since it is non-terminating, you didn't really prove every item gets counted after finite time, did you? Refer to my other reply, you asserted a requirement of predefined (describable) counting scheme here. Why that requirement has a
233.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Why a pre-definable function matters here? We have allowed a real number (that cannot be exhaustively described) in, so why a real function (that you cannot exhaustively define) has to be excluded? Isn't it unfair that I am only allowe
234.
by hzhou321 10y ago
I am not a mathematician (physicist). I think the concept of infinity is a con that mathematicians have pulled on us (as there isn't an easy reality to map on to). I can understand arbitrarily big set; however, I never managed to mak
235.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Maybe I am the only one, but I find numpy is like alcohol. You may feel exhilarated in writing numpy code, but the resulting code is often very difficult to read.
236.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Not to rewrite is a very sensible decision due to the fact that the current way of programming is un-rewritable . For example, people don't write FORTRAN in every language. The choice of programming language often fundamentally change
237.
by hzhou321 10y ago
The right way to think about privacy would be "is that privacy worthwhile to protect". There is no absolute in reality. Everything is a balance. And that balance is constantly shifting. We, human, are experts in handling shifting
238.
by hzhou321 10y ago
> The simple fact is that most of our past vulnerabilities happened because of logical mistakes in the code. All bugs are logical errors at various scale.
239.
by hzhou321 10y ago
The real usefulness of such lists, of course, is not to use it to win debates or to recogonize them among your opponents' arguments. The real usefulness is to recognize them in our own reasoning.
240.
by hzhou321 10y ago
I think the first language course should not be any single language but a language sampling course. Students learn the concept of variables, switches, loops and subroutines, then they learn how it is used in all common languages. And for ho

More ›