Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

I will see you later then. Have fun cooking.

The third one seems like fun. What are we going to eat?

Well, I do not think it is a good idea to consider any question to be foolish.

But then there were no upvotes either.

Because you are discouraged by the number of downvotes?

And start hiking instead?

That makes two of us!

Have you heard of Curry-Howard isomorphism?

He is teaching Computer Science. Computer Science is the best!

By the way, proofs and programs are the same thing

I am sorry, what he said is not enough.

bobbym wrote:

Doron says a program is better than a proof.

Do you know what Curry-Howard Isomorphism is?

bobbym wrote:

Do teachers change their next lecture or do they teach the same proof as they did last year?

They do. Our Haskell prof offers a course called "Proofs and Types"

How am I overlooking that, again?

They are already publishing their opinions in their blogs and webpages

You are missing out the Computer Scientists!

My point is that Wolfram's talk in many places just skips over the details. I'd like the full details of the talk

I live in the Riemann Sphere

I do not think you get my point.

Hi;

What motivates people to study these numbers?

I get it, but he is not really backing up his argument with much. How did he arrive at the qualification of 50000? That cannot be just from out of the blue.

Once again, I'd like to see his complete thoughts on this, not just the point.

Once in the mechanics class, our physics professor gave a very strange argument to claim that an expression is true.

I was perplexed and asked how that is a proof of anything?

He said, its a physicist's proof. A physicist understands that if this went wrong then something very weird would happen.

I asked, So you mean a verification?

He said, no, it's a legit proof. Keep in mind that a mathematician's idea of what a proof is, is different from what a physicist thinks a proof is.

Well, what counts as a proof is subjective. However, for a formalist, it is less subjective.

I would be very disappointed at Wolfram, then. A man of his knowledge should know better than that.

Leaving that aside, do you not feel that the talk is dumbed down for laymen?

Did you get my point in post 6?

JDK is the development kit.

Please look here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index-jsp-138363.html

Interesting. How does M know this?