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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

How the heck can anyone get bored of C++? Like those Java coders, never could understand them.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

It's kinda mainstream... Everybody is used to it...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

Frankly, C++ is too...procedural. I tried Perl, but prefer Ruby instead. And I agree with Stefy, C++ is as if you are instantaneously doing something you have to, rather then enjoying programming.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Frankly, C++ is too...procedural

In your educational system or at work you will soon enough run into a functional rather than procedural language.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

I still prefer other languages over C++.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

I prefer functional over procedural. But once you learned procedural first, forever will you think that way.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

Have you two ever tried something of the sorts of APL and J?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Hi;

I didn't like APL. Pretty early on I got fascinated by AI so the functional paradigm is where I stayed.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

So, you have tried Lisp or Prolog?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

I have tried Lisp.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Mathematica uses prolog. Maxima uses lisp. I have used lisp for a while.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

I did not like Lisp.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

( * 1 2 3 4 5 ) yields 120

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

Um, okay.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Don't remember all that much about the language but I do remember writing a package to do multiprecision arithmetic in it.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

I like creating compression systems. On IDE based languages anyways...

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

I am very impressed by the shortness of coded that gets written in J. I.e. it takes only 4 characters to sum a matrix +/+/...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Sum a matrix?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

I meant sum the elements of a matrix of numbers...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

But look at the awesome power of lisp

`(mapcar #'+ '(1 2 3 4 5) '(10 20 30 40 50)`

yields (11 22 33 44 55)

or M's power

{1,2,3,4,5}+{10,20,30,40,50} -> {11,22,33,44,55}

No annoying loop. No remembering whether arrays start at 0 or 1. No going past the end of the array.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

J can do that too.

```
1 2 3 4 5+11 12 13 14 15
12 14 16 18 20
```

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2012-10-23 10:12:03)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

Can J do this?

(Sum[x^k,{k,1,6,1}]/6)^5 //Expand

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

You must remeber J is neither a mathematical package nor a symbolic manipulator...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,547

So then why should anyone use it?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,388

Why use Lisp?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline