Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Logical Quantifiers Again
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Barb Knox
Dec 26, 2011, 6:01:02 PM12/26/11
to
In article
<956f09a9-e075-4305...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Tony Orlow <bony...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 7:55 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Orlow, as I said, you would reply with yet more confusions. I can't
> > perpetually disabuse you or your own confusions that you manufacture
> > in the vacuum of your knowledge on the subject.
>
> I do have a bachelor's in Computer Science, which consists of logical
> structures as well as other informational representations and
> structures. If that is a vacuum of knowledge, then I suppose I have to
> be a published PhD for you to consider my thoughts as being remotely
> worth consideration. A rather pompous position for you to take
> IMHO....
He did say a vacuum of knowledge *on the subject*, which happens to be
mathematical logic. An encyclopaedic knowledge of (say) Etruscan
pottery would be useless here, and IMO a knowledge of computer "science"
(i.e., computer programming) is *worse* than useless.
Yes, you have worked with certain logical structures and certain finite
representations and structures. But trying to force all of mathematics
onto that Procrustean bed causes no end of mutilation.
Perhaps you have heard the old CS saying that if you know Fortran then
you can learn Lisp in 3 weeks, and if you don't know Fortran you can
learn Lisp in 2 weeks. (To modernise this, replace "Fortran" with "C".)
The point is that some kinds of knowledge induce a worldview that
actively interferes with some other kinds of knowledge. In your case
(and many others), knowledge of one-step-at-a-time stateful finite
processes and structures actively interferes with all-at-once stateless
infinite mathematics.
If some publisher wanted it, I would be happy to write a book on
Remedial Mathematics for Computer Programmers. But the demand would be
low, since so many competent computer programmers confuse their godlike
powers of calling things into existence by mere thought (and typing)
with actual omniscience. Oh well.
</rant>
[snip]
[added comp.edu]
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
<956f09a9-e075-4305...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Tony Orlow <bony...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 7:55 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Orlow, as I said, you would reply with yet more confusions. I can't
> > perpetually disabuse you or your own confusions that you manufacture
> > in the vacuum of your knowledge on the subject.
>
> I do have a bachelor's in Computer Science, which consists of logical
> structures as well as other informational representations and
> structures. If that is a vacuum of knowledge, then I suppose I have to
> be a published PhD for you to consider my thoughts as being remotely
> worth consideration. A rather pompous position for you to take
> IMHO....
He did say a vacuum of knowledge *on the subject*, which happens to be
mathematical logic. An encyclopaedic knowledge of (say) Etruscan
pottery would be useless here, and IMO a knowledge of computer "science"
(i.e., computer programming) is *worse* than useless.
Yes, you have worked with certain logical structures and certain finite
representations and structures. But trying to force all of mathematics
onto that Procrustean bed causes no end of mutilation.
Perhaps you have heard the old CS saying that if you know Fortran then
you can learn Lisp in 3 weeks, and if you don't know Fortran you can
learn Lisp in 2 weeks. (To modernise this, replace "Fortran" with "C".)
The point is that some kinds of knowledge induce a worldview that
actively interferes with some other kinds of knowledge. In your case
(and many others), knowledge of one-step-at-a-time stateful finite
processes and structures actively interferes with all-at-once stateless
infinite mathematics.
If some publisher wanted it, I would be happy to write a book on
Remedial Mathematics for Computer Programmers. But the demand would be
low, since so many competent computer programmers confuse their godlike
powers of calling things into existence by mere thought (and typing)
with actual omniscience. Oh well.
</rant>
[snip]
[added comp.edu]
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
0 new messages