Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOPand imperative programming lang

Discussion in 'Python' started by Mark Janssen, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. Mark Janssen

    Mark Janssen Guest

    On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Jason Wilkins
    <> wrote:
    > I don't quite think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
    > mathematical models are not a good foundation for computer science because
    > computers are really made out of electronic gates?


    No, I'm really trying to point out that models based on Digital Logic
    vs. models based on Symbolic Logic are completely different -- they
    have different basiis. They are both types of "Maths", and that you
    can interchange them as a demonstration doesn't actually help the
    practical issue of keeping the two domains separate -- they have
    differing logics. It's like the domain of Natural numbers vs. the
    Complex, or perhaps the Natural and the Real. Yes you can translate
    back and forth, but they are for all practical purposes distinct and
    can't be mixed.

    > All I need to do is show that my model reduces to some basic physical
    > implementation (with perhaps some allowances for infinity) and then I can
    > promptly forget about that messy business and proceed to use my clean
    > mathematical model.


    If that's all you want to do, you can stick with Boolean Logic.

    > The reason any model of computation exists is that it is easier to think
    > about a problem in some terms than in others. By showing how to transform
    > one model to another you make it possible to choose exactly how you wish to
    > solve a problem.


    Yes, and I'm attempting to provide an argument that the
    (historically?) dominant model of symbolic calculus is misinforming
    the practical domain of working out differences and arguments within
    my own domain of the programming community.

    Unfortunately, my inexperience with the literature is actually
    betraying the validity of my point.

    > The reason we do not work directly in what are called "von Neumann machines"
    > is that they are not convenient for all kinds of problems. However we can
    > build a compiler to translate anything to anything else so we I don't see
    > why anybody would care.


    I'm trying to say that *I* care, because I can't seem to find the
    common ground that affects 1000's of people in the applied C.S. domain
    with the 1000's of people in the theoretical C.S. domain.

    MarkJ
    Tacoma
     
    Mark Janssen, Apr 20, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page