tel

105 ms·

781.
by tel 11y ago
Sure, but "matrix", the word, means just that. What you're talking about would be better referred to as R^4, or R^(2*2).
782.
by tel 11y ago
When you're standing here you're in for a real treat once flatmap starts making sense and making its way into your hear^H^H^H^H code.
783.
by tel 11y ago
The bet is on, then, I suppose :) I think your point about architecture versus science is a good thing to think about. On one end, I agree with everything you're saying. On the other end, I see that architecture only works due to a lar
784.
by tel 11y ago
Tbh, I have never looked at Perl 6. But I know it was written from the influence of Haskell so... quite possibly!
785.
by tel 11y ago
Well, phew! ;) To the first point: I'm happy to generalize my claim outside of merely C-H school (which I'd call the "logical" school, maybe this is the same or maybe it's more broad than what you mean by C-H) and m
786.
by tel 11y ago
> This is infuriatingly true. Everything you do in Haskell you can understand in terms of what code gets executed where and how. This is just as true of Haskell as it is of any other high-level language. I think anyone who really under
787.
by tel 11y ago
They are mechanical because CT is more a language than a field in its own right. They're mechanical in the same way that a lot of logic or universal algebra is—the interesting stuff arises when you start making choices and using the
788.
by tel 11y ago
If that Haskeller you're referring to was me then I'd like to clarify: I think mathematics is a good fit for humans because it's the output of a few centuries of careful large scale use and design, not because it's simpl
789.
by tel 11y ago
The module system is the object system fwiw. The things OCaml calls objects are just dynamic row-typed beasties which is why nobody recommends them (except to use as phantom parameters to get your own row typing).
790.
by tel 11y ago
They tell people to avoid the things called objects in OCaml which essentially are just row-typed dynamic records and an inheritance system. Really it's the inheritance system people are taught to avoid... Same as anyone in OO is bei
791.
by tel 11y ago
Yep!
792.
by tel 11y ago
These are particularly terse lecture/review notes. Is there an expanded version?
793.
by tel 11y ago
I'll take a brief stab since I think there are important differences but this is also holy war territory so YMMV. ML tends to be more concerned with scale and computational efficiency as the algorithms used are often (a) heavyweight an
794.
by tel 11y ago
I'm highly out of the loop. Why would someone self hosting their own music be prey to DMCA?
795.
by tel 11y ago
So you're saying there's space for a "DIY self-hosting" product which integrates with a promotion network?
796.
by tel 11y ago
For ML and Data Science I'd say very immature. HLearn does interesting things but is far from providing a workable ML or Data Science workflow. We need solid, unquestionable Matrix and Vector libs upon which the ~50 bread and butter al
797.
by tel 11y ago
The two challenges past this point are (a) making the components ignorant to the larger structure of the single state enabling things like component-local state and state representation independence and (b) getting creative with how to cons
798.
by tel 11y ago
Reify Health | Boston, MA | Full-time engineer Reify Health is looking for software engineers and product specialists interested in building great products and technology to enable a more creative healthcare system. Healthcare stagnates whe
799.
by tel 11y ago
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I'd argue that mathematical foundations (maybe not set theory interpreted strictly) does take aim at answers to "why is there something?" and "where do humans find meaning?". Possib
800.
by tel 11y ago
But then sometimes it might be the case that the truly persistent thing is the derivative and the algebra forced your hand for good reason!
801.
by tel 11y ago
I'm not, but I can't see how you cannot study set theory without eventually studying intuitionism.
802.
by tel 11y ago
> I have a sneaky suspicion... You have no idea. The more I study this stuff the more I feel that all philosophical questions might be somehow encoded in there.
803.
by tel 11y ago
I think there's an odd sense where people think derivatives arise from "change in things" instead of being principal. It's sensible from our personal mindset to believe this but there's no reason a priori. So that&#
804.
by tel 11y ago
Didn't read in enough detail to pick out the use of K. My understanding is that the separation comes from an internal/external dichotomy. Internally we only have our observations as support for the metric, externally (and for a ni
805.
by tel 11y ago
The mathematical models of space and time suggest that there might be a philosophical stance where "spacetime" itself is a physical object. What this means, really, is that one might want to talk about situations where two choices
806.
by tel 11y ago
A natural transformation between endofunctors? How exactly? That's just a family of functions µ : F(x) -> G(x) such that for all (f : x -> y), (F(f);µ == µ;G(f)). I don't see how that's capturing anything inter
807.
by tel 11y ago
I'm happy saying "file-writing conjugated by putting-a-file-into-scope".
808.
by tel 11y ago
Using mutability. It's not a sin, just something to avoid when not strictly necessary. http://jspha.com/posts/mutable_algorithms_in_immutable_langu... http://jspha.com/posts/mutable_algorithms
809.
by tel 11y ago
Over is similar, but not identical.
810.
by tel 11y ago
In math this is often called "conjugation". It's also sometimes called "commutation".

More ›