Mathematics is less precise than Programming

[Eodnhoj7]

Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable...

“Mathematics is much less formally complete and precise than computer programs.” — William Thurston, 1994
"Math is less precise than Programming." --Cody Roux (echoed by Andrej Bauer), 2021

This argument is only an appeal to authority as the weight of the statements lies on those being referenced.

Given precision, according to you, is not definable then you are going in circles saying something is precise but we don't know what precision is.... therefore it may be concluded that programming is not as precise as math considering we don't know what precision is.

[Skepdick]

This argument is only an appeal to authority as the weight of the statements lies on those being referenced.

Given precision, according to you, is not definable then you are going in circles saying something is precise but we don't know what precision is.... therefore it may be concluded that programming is not as precise as math considering we don't know what precision is.

You know what precision is.

My cat's name is Whiskers. He's got brown and white patches on his head.
My cat's name is Whiskers. He's got brown and white patches on his head and he only has 3 legs. His front right was amputated when he was a kitten.

Which description is more precise?
Which of the two descriptions would better help you identify my cat in a room full of cats?

The same thing with Mathematical proofs. The description which specifies more details is the one which helps you unambiguously identify the Mathematical object being spoken about.

[Eodnhoj7]

This argument is only an appeal to authority as the weight of the statements lies on those being referenced.

Given precision, according to you, is not definable then you are going in circles saying something is precise but we don't know what precision is.... therefore it may be concluded that programming is not as precise as math considering we don't know what precision is.

You know what precision is.

My cat's name is Whiskers. He's got brown and white patches on his head.
My cat's name is Whiskers. He's got brown and white patches on his head and he only has 3 legs. His front right was amputated when he was a kitten.

Which description is more precise?
Which of the two descriptions would better help you identify my cat in a room full of cats?

The same thing with Mathematical proofs. The description which specifies more details is the one which helps you unambiguously identify the Mathematical object being spoken about.

"Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable...".... your words not mine.


Anyhow with the increase in clarity in one respect comes a decrease in another. In defining the tree one may miss the forest, in defining the forest one may miss the tree. Precision, and the clarity which comes with, it is a double edged sword. Mathematics and programming, as respective individual disciplines, does not not exclude themselves from this dilemma.

[Skepdick]

Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable...".... your words not mine.

My words indeed. Which is why I have not defined it.

Anyhow with the increase in clarity in one respect comes a decrease in another. In defining the tree one may miss the forest, in defining the forest one may miss the tree.

I am defining the thing to be identified. Be it one forst amongst many; or onr tree amongst many.

Precision, and the clarity which comes with, it is a double edged sword.

It really isn't.

[Eodnhoj7]

Aside from the fact that "precision" is not precisely definable...".... your words not mine.

My words indeed. Which is why I have not defined it.

Anyhow with the increase in clarity in one respect comes a decrease in another. In defining the tree one may miss the forest, in defining the forest one may miss the tree.

I am defining the thing to be identified. Be it one forst amongst many; or onr tree amongst many.

Precision, and the clarity which comes with, it is a double edged sword.

It really isn't.

1. If you are not defining "precision" it may equate to anything thus rendering your point moot.

2. The identity of one thing results in the absence of identity in the surrounding contexts.

3. See point 2.

[Skepdick]

1. If you are not defining "precision" it may equate to anything thus rendering your point moot.

I am sure you can tell the difference between anything and precision.

2. The identity of one thing results in the absence of identity in the surrounding contexts.

I am not talking about identity. I am talking about identification.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. If you are not defining "precision" it may equate to anything thus rendering your point moot.

I am sure you can tell the difference between anything and precision.

2. The identity of one thing results in the absence of identity in the surrounding contexts.

I am not talking about identity. I am talking about identification.

1. "Anything" is a precise definition of "all things".

2. Identification is the act of forming identity. Where identity increases in one phenomenon, through the act of identification, an absence of identity, through the absence of the act of identification, occurs through the surrounding phenomena. Identity is the static form of the action of identification.

[Skepdick]

1. "Anything" is a precise definition of "all things".

No it isn't. It doesn't identify any thing.

2. Identification is the act of forming identity.

Identification is the act of selecting my cat from a room full of other cats.

Where identity increases in one phenomenon, through the act of identification, an absence of identity, through the absence of the act of identification, occurs through the surrounding phenomena. Identity is the static form of the action of identification.

Word salad.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. "Anything" is a precise definition of "all things".

No it isn't. It doesn't identify any thing.

2. Identification is the act of forming identity.

Identification is the act of selecting my cat from a room full of other cats.

Where identity increases in one phenomenon, through the act of identification, an absence of identity, through the absence of the act of identification, occurs through the surrounding phenomena. Identity is the static form of the action of identification.

Word salad.

1. Anything identifies all things. It identifies all of reality under a single word.

2. Yet the one cat is defined through the contexts of the surrounding cats. It is identified as "cat" because of other cats. In selecting one phenomenon one results in equating it to a variable. "Cat", as meaning many things as there are many cats, defines your cat.

3. No it isn't....forest for the tree, tree for the forest.

[Skepdick]

1. Anything identifies all things. It identifies all of reality under a single word.

All things identifies all things. Anything doesn't identify any thing.

2. Yet the one cat is defined through the contexts of the surrounding cats. It is identified as "cat" because of other cats. In selecting one phenomenon one results in equating it to a variable. "Cat", as meaning many things as there are many cats, defines your cat.

I am not asking you to identify any cat. I am asking you to identify a specific one. My cat.

Which is why you need a precise description.

3. No it isn't....forest for the tree, tree for the forest.

You can't even tell which forest or which tree.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Anything identifies all things. It identifies all of reality under a single word.

All things identifies all things. Anything doesn't identify any thing.

2. Yet the one cat is defined through the contexts of the surrounding cats. It is identified as "cat" because of other cats. In selecting one phenomenon one results in equating it to a variable. "Cat", as meaning many things as there are many cats, defines your cat.

I am not asking you to identify any cat. I am asking you to identify a specific one. My cat.

Which is why you need a precise description.

3. No it isn't....forest for the tree, tree for the forest.

You can't even tell which forest or which tree.

1. Any thing identifies as any one thing from the multitude of all things. It points to all things.

2. Yet in identifying the one cat you are using the variable of "cat" in defining it.

3. Hypocritical considering you cannot precisely describe precision.

[Skepdick]

1. Any thing identifies as any one thing from the multitude of all things.

It does? Which one thing does it identify?

It points to all things.

So it doesn't identify any one thing.

2. Yet in identifying the one cat you are using the variable of "cat" in defining it.

I am not identifying the one cat. I am saying that thing I want you to identify is a cat.

Which is not very useful information in a room full of cats.

3. Hypocritical considering you cannot precisely describe precision.

There's no hypocrisy in inability. It's just a fact. A limit of what I can and cannot do.

You can't lick the back of your head. Does that make you a hypocrite?

[Eodnhoj7]

1. Any thing identifies as any one thing from the multitude of all things.

It does? Which one thing does it identify?

It points to all things.

So it doesn't identify any one thing.

2. Yet in identifying the one cat you are using the variable of "cat" in defining it.

I am not identifying the one cat. I am saying that thing I want you to identify is a cat.

Which is not very useful information in a room full of cats.

3. Hypocritical considering you cannot precisely describe precision.

There's no hypocrisy in inability. It's just a fact. A limit of what I can and cannot do.

You can't lick the back of your head. Does that make you a hypocrite?

1. The totality of being as one event.

2. See point 1.

3. Yet in identification we use variables which are sweeping generalizations that requires one phenomenon to exist relative to another through its similarities with the other.

4. If you cannot define precision then you cannot define what is precise or not precise.

[Skepdick]

1. The totality of being as one event.

You can't observe that unless you sit next to God.

3. Yet in identification we use variables which are sweeping generalizations that requires one phenomenon to exist relative to another through its similarities with the other.

So what?

4. If you cannot define precision then you cannot define what is precise or not precise.

If you can't define your mother then you can't define what is your mother and what is not your mother.

I don't want to define it. Recognition suffices.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. The totality of being as one event.

You can't observe that unless you sit next to God.

3. Yet in identification we use variables which are sweeping generalizations that requires one phenomenon to exist relative to another through its similarities with the other.

So what?

4. If you cannot define precision then you cannot define what is precise or not precise.

If you can't define your mother then you can't define what is your mother and what is not your mother.

I don't want to define it. Recognition suffices.

1. The parts containing the whole, much like a line within a line, allows for absolute truth of the totality of things. Everything existing through cycles points to one grand cycle.

2. Variables as generalities necessitate approximations as an absence of precision. Precision cannot be observed without its dual element of an absence of precision.

3. Recognition is to accept an event for what it is, this acceptance focuses on the precision of one phenomenon over another. You cannot escape the "forest for the trees" dilemma.