Are you sure?
Are you sure about that?
How can you be sure?
Are you sure?
Trivial empirical observation.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:49 pm Are you sure?
Are you sure about that?
How can you be sure?
It's always important to understand, ironically perhaps ..the "con_text" ..context of what Bill was suggesting:-
Maths is clearly open to a far wider scope than the preciseness of what has been programmed into a binary machine.
You are doing all of your reasoning in the "con_text" of a binary machine. You have a target platform in mind. An "assembly" language for which you are compiling (reducing) a set of logical operators which you are pre-supposing. But all of that stuff reduces to some silicon implementing a function.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:22 am It's always important to understand, ironically perhaps ..the "con_text" ..context of what Bill was suggesting:-
If he is stating "computer programs" as in, past tense - then absolutely - the program is now working specifically to the how the programmer left it, compiled for machine processing, bugs and all. So the computer program is precise, since the code language used was compiled...it is constrained to that compiler spec, it is precise.
Maths on the other hand, is in a continual progression until the point in time when a phycisist can use it and finally bangs heads with 'God'..
Maths is clearly open to a far wider scope than the preciseness of what has been programmed into a binary machine.
..sorry, but explain within the thread - i'm not going to traverse the internet to comprehend any point attempting to be made here.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:33 amYou are doing all of your reasoning in the "con_text" of a binary machine. You have a target platform in mind. An "assembly" language for which you are compiling (reducing) a set of logical operators which you are pre-supposing. But all of that stuff reduces to some silicon implementing a function.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:22 am It's always important to understand, ironically perhaps ..the "con_text" ..context of what Bill was suggesting:-
If he is stating "computer programs" as in, past tense - then absolutely - the program is now working specifically to the how the programmer left it, compiled for machine processing, bugs and all. So the computer program is precise, since the code language used was compiled...it is constrained to that compiler spec, it is precise.
Maths on the other hand, is in a continual progression until the point in time when a phycisist can use it and finally bangs heads with 'God'..
Maths is clearly open to a far wider scope than the preciseness of what has been programmed into a binary machine.
But what is a Boolean function? What is the minimum set of functions you need in order to be able to derrive Boolean logic?
One possible answer is Sheffer stroke; or its dual: NOR.
Skeppy, skeppy...what have you been smoking tonight---a BIT of this dude perhaps:-Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:33 am The "continual progression" of Mathematics you are speaking about is called Continuation Passing Style. You can express ANY mathematical truth as a (very very very) long Continuation.
And obviously, when you are expressing Continuations you are talking about control and control-flow. It's one stupid mistake from projecting your desire to exercise control onto the universe.
My point is you are ignoring the input of the function and only focusing on the output.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:23 pm A boolean function returns a binary result. What is your point? - as I alluded to, it is precise.
lolSkepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:51 pmMy point is you are ignoring the input of the function and only focusing on the output.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 7:23 pm A boolean function returns a binary result. What is your point? - as I alluded to, it is precise.
The NOT function takes one Boolean and produces one Boolean.
The OR function takes a pair of Booleans and produces one Boolean.
The function that is your head takes as input an English squestions and produces Booleans.
The difference between an OR function and your head is.... huuuuge.
I won't accept any statement/argument as refutation - words mean nothing against living proof.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:52 am lol
You need to understand your thread title is "Mathematics is less precise than Programming"
..the statement is wide open to refutation, and rather simply. Eg. A shit programmer is going to be 'non' precise.
lol, maybe.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:21 amI won't accept any statement/argument as refutation - words mean nothing against living proof.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 12:52 am lol
You need to understand your thread title is "Mathematics is less precise than Programming"
..the statement is wide open to refutation, and rather simply. Eg. A shit programmer is going to be 'non' precise.
Have you ever used a languge so strict the compiler is akin to Gandalf fighting the Balrog screaming "You shall not pass!".
Not sure what you mean by a "proof assistant" - but once that code is compiled - at runtime, data goes in and eventually inaccuracies come into effect - so, shit programmer, shit testers = unprecise result.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 1:21 amPick up a proof assistant and try be a shit programmer - it mandates a level of verbosity, explicitness and strictness even the most disciplined programers aren't used to! If you are a shit programmer you won't succeed in making the proof assistant cooperate with you.
For the purpose of the discussion think of a "proof assistant" as an asshole-compiler.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:39 am Not sure what you mean by a "proof assistant" - but once that code is compiled - at runtime, data goes in and eventually inaccuracies come into effect - so, shit programmer, shit testers = unprecise result.
Idiot. The absence of a definition doesn't render precision is unrecognizable.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:13 am "Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable..." renders the arguments invalid given the core term from which the arguments expand from is undefined thus equivocal to anything. One cannot say mathematics is less precise than programming if "precision" can equivocate to anything.
Your use of the word "idiot" is a projection of your own inadequacies in argumentation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:59 amIdiot. The absence of a definition doesn't render precision is unrecognizable.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:13 am "Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable..." renders the arguments invalid given the core term from which the arguments expand from is undefined thus equivocal to anything. One cannot say mathematics is less precise than programming if "precision" can equivocate to anything.
Which of these two requests is more precise?
Please bring me a teacup from the kitchen.
Please bring me the yellow ceramic teacup with the cat pattern and red handle from the kitchen.
But lets not stop there, while you are being stupid, The word "definition" is undefined thus equivocal to anything.
No, it isn't. It's an objective assertion about your argumentation strategy based on evidence.
Q.E.D You struggle with basic reading comprehension. I didn't say precision is not definable.
Fixed if for you.
It lies in empiricism. Given two phrases (A and B) you have three possible relations between them.
I have a subjective judgment/assertion based on the objective properties of the two expressions on which one is more precise.
What's the difference between a "feeling" and "just a feeling". What does "just" feel like?
Which is precisely why it's not precise - it's ambiguous.
And yet you know precisely which cup of tea I am talking about.
See! You agree with me. Expressing A phenomenon - singular. Not phenomena - plural!
That's an imprecise definition of "definition".Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 11:58 pm I know what precision is, it is definition (and definition is the observation of relations (the observation of relations is the manifestation of parts (the manifestation of parts is division (the manifestation of division is opposition))) etc.....the definitions go on until eventually they loop back.
Computer programs are only more precise if one is only referring to the limits of a particular programming language. No digital processor is capable of either the precision or accuracy of mathematics itself.
Since most scientific mathematical operations use floating point math, there is the ubiquitous, "rounding problem."There is, first of all, the built in problem of not being able to represent all real numbers. "Squeezing infinitely many real numbers into a finite number of bits requires an approximate representation. Although there are infinitely many integers, in most programs the result of integer computations can be stored in 32 bits, (or these days, 64 bits).
One distinguishing feature that separates traditional computer science from scientific computing is its use of discrete mathematics (0s and 1s) instead of continuous mathematics and calculus.
I think you are confusing precision and accuracy:Arithmetic with integers is exact, unless the answer is outside the range of integers that can be represented (overflow). In contrast, floating point arithmetic is not exact since some real numbers require an infinite number of digits to be represented, e.g., the mathematical constants e and π and 1/3.
Precision vs. accuracy. Precision = tightness of specification. Accuracy = correctness. Do not confuse precision with accuracy. 3.133333333 is an estimate of the mathematical constant π which is specified with 10 decimal digits of precision, but it only has two decimal digits of accuracy.