tel

39 ms·

331.
by tel 7y ago
I was imagining the FFI emitting XLA code needed to implement the TF/JAX routines behind the scenes, but it's wild speculation.
332.
by tel 7y ago
Bridging into NumPy isn’t going to be useful unless it covers some AD system too (XLA?).
333.
by tel 7y ago
Agreed, it's trivial to embed. This is the sense to which type theory doesn't really have a ton to "say" about dynamic types. See my other response for a bit more of a fleshed out idea here. Short of it is that I'm
334.
by tel 7y ago
I hear what you're saying---and appreciate the references---but I guess what I intended to discuss above was the "practice of dynamic types/tags" as is carried out in software development. LC is clearly "untyped&quo
335.
by tel 7y ago
Serious answer: type theory as a subject almost never discusses any idea like dynamic types (they wouldn't even be considered "types"). Presumably, if you only ever study it academically then you might actually have never eve
336.
by tel 7y ago
Frequentist statistics is often pretty poorly taught. Ideas like likelihood, modeling, and optimization underly the mechanics of both worlds. There's a big obsession with testing, but the Neyman Pearson testing framework is sound an in
337.
by tel 7y ago
Yep, "macros" can operate at any point during the compilation/interpretation process to transform the inputs. Generally speaking, the earlier on the more simplistic the structures and the less inferential products available.
338.
by tel 7y ago
The syntactic approach subsumes the more semantic approach where the graph structure is made explicit. So, yeah, you can "compile" list structures to the binding graph and indeed you must. Having more granular distinctions always
339.
by tel 7y ago
Yes, the user has to since the system ignores it. A lisp macro operates, generally, over the abstract syntax tree as opposed to the "abstract binding tree" where alpha equivalences have already been factored out. Or, concretely, a
340.
by tel 7y ago
I do want to add that Lisp metaprogramming does one big trick for DSL design in that it works at the syntactic level and ignores binding. Thus all the tricks around hygenics and anaphoria etc. Since ignoring binding means that you only de
341.
by tel 7y ago
Sure, agreed. "Fundamental technique" wouldn't imply "necessary technique" in my vernacular. The CPS mindset is sure down there in fundamentals town, though, with respect to thinking about evaluation, etc.
342.
by tel 7y ago
Many people seem to write DSLs these days. My goal here was simply to encourage people who might not typically work in a functional style to think about how continuations might be useful in the design of their lan
343.
by tel 7y ago
Not strictly true, regularization in various forms can help have expert knowledge apply to create better extrapolation. Parametric models could be thought of as a kind of regularization even.
344.
by tel 7y ago
To a programmer, the real nuts and bolts of category theory aren't a ton of use. People have had some success reverse engineering some of these concepts into programming technologies, but it is a very long road to learn enough CT to ei
345.
by tel 8y ago
The real differentiation will come from feature engineering. Random forests and boosted trees (the other fire-and-forget model of choice) can tell you a lot about the data set from their validation performance under tuning. It might be that
346.
by tel 8y ago
Prior to model explainability was experimental design.
347.
by tel 8y ago
Let me first transcript his math. He's giving a judgement for regex semantics `s matches r`. - [for all r] <empty> matches r [unconditionally] - [for all c] c matches c - [for all w, r1, r2] IF w matches r1
348.
What Declarative Languages Are (2013)(semantic-domain.blogspot.com)
1 points by tel 8y ago|0 comments
349.
by tel 8y ago
"Declarative" programming has become something of a buzzword. This is unfortunate because it prevents finer distinctions between domain specific language techniques. I think it achieved its buzzword status because it for a long ti
350.
by tel 8y ago
I've been struggling with GTD for years. It's obviously a thoughtful system, but it's hard to implement the advice of not getting nerdy about it. It's easy to fall in love with tools. But lately I've been having mor
351.
by tel 8y ago
Disagree. While we can suppose and discuss personal ethics, and while we can agree that certain behaviors are hurtful or abusive, we cannot expect that a single policy of that style will actually defend against abuse. At least not at scale.
352.
by tel 8y ago
That's just one way to do it. Another might be collect :: Maybe (Maybe a) -> Either[Bool, a]
353.
by tel 8y ago
I am. In any concrete context, Maybe (Maybe A) could _probably_ be simplified to just Maybe A as we expect. Alternatively, we could be in a situation where there are two notions of failure (represented here as Nothing and Just Nothing) in w
354.
by tel 8y ago
The downside of that (which can be provided by union types) is that `Maybe (Maybe X) == Maybe X` which may or may not be what you're after. The particular weakness is the interplay with generics where `forall t. Maybe t` depends upon t
355.
by tel 8y ago
You can see all of these as data structures instead of programs and then derivatives transfer and generalize nicely: see Conoc McBride’s work on zippers.
356.
by tel 8y ago
> the representation you use to shard data should be homeomorphic to the intrinsic topology of the data mode Why is that?
357.
by tel 8y ago
This, I feel, is the case with all monads. Even "free monads" are just an interesting name for an AST with embedded host-language functions. Monad is interesting in retrospect. After you "get" X, Y, and Z you come to rea
358.
by tel 8y ago
Type variable. Since data definitions can bind new type variables, it's necessary to consider variance there and in the resulting type constructor, too.
359.
by tel 8y ago
My understanding is that the research background for a lot of dependently typed designs is based on proof theories where the program/proof represents the theory/constraint one-to-one. Other systems (PRL, Hoare logic) also exist bu
360.
by tel 8y ago
The general solution for heterogenous layers requires indexing the layers. The x type variable ends up having kind `Index -> *` for your index type Index.

More ›