@Donna
Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, there are some that seem to believe
in scientific theories religiously. As far as I know, no scientific theory
can be proven right; it can only be proven wrong if its predictions break
down.
@Don
> Unfortunately earth events can't be rerun for repro
That was from memory. I should have looked it up before posting.
Sorry... lazy...
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise I seem to have
gotten numbers much higher (roughly double) the actual rate.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
wrote:
>
Unfortunately earth events can't be rerun for reproducible tests. There are
many causes for climate change. No one really has a handle on it. Perhaps
the real climate change deniers are those who claim we can stop climate
change.
On Mar 6, 2018 6:37 PM, "Donna Y" wrote:
> Raul
>
> Thanks for the
Raul
Thanks for the links to the articles that discuss the scope of the problem of
no one being motivated or funded to carry out replication experiments.
Jose
Thanks for the cartoon—I am way off in right field with the mathematician.
The results of a single study do not establish scientific fa
> That said, I hope your property stays in good condition.
Thank you.
Reportedly, the sea levels have been rising at least for the last few
thousand years. The question is if there is an acceleration. Apparently,
Al Gore's house is near the coast of California. What is its elevation? I
have
Eh... I'm not sure anything I said should be a cause for rejoicing?
The models can be wrong, and the change can still be happening. (If I
understand properly, we've been seeing global average sea level rise
at a rate of approximately 1 inch every five or six years since
roughly the 1920s. It might
I am glad to hear that (my house in Miami Beach faces the Bay's waters).
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> I have heard a variety of disagreements, both with that premise, and
> with attempts at experiments.
>
> (Including, since you brought up climate change, an attempt (by a
Maybe this picture: https://xkcd.com/435/ should be updated by adding a
computer on the far right. :)
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Donna Y wrote:
> There is a current school of thought that holds that you can just say
> something and make it so—it is certainly not the academic publishing
>
I have heard a variety of disagreements, both with that premise, and
with attempts at experiments.
(Including, since you brought up climate change, an attempt (by a
reputable MIT graduate) to reproduce Hans Hug's data (funding for lab
costs was there, and interns to do the legwork were available,
There is a current school of thought that holds that you can just say something
and make it so—it is certainly not the academic publishing system—they hold
that to be a scientifically established conclusion it must be verified by
reproducible scientific results.
When I studied mathematics compu
< One weakness of the academic publishing system has been that it never
cared much about reproducible scientific results. Hopefully that
I suspect some scientists (or "scientists" depending on one's point of
view), for example, those working on Climate Change (Global Warming) and
related matters,
> So I'm not sure this helps you,
Be sure it does.
1. I spent precious years receiving a stream of people who were not IT
professionals, and didn't want to be, but had IT rammed down their throats.
To wit: wives of IBM Hursley staff, who signed up for a Human Factors Lab
subject panel.
I briefed
Eh... for me that was the J Dictionary, the J Concrete Math book and
the J Source book. But that was for me...
(Also, before that, I'd gotten quite a lot out of the Gilman and Rose
book on APL (it had a red cover though - and when I search for it, I
find a different version with a green cover - I
Thanks, Joe.
I have Introductions to J coming out my ears. And before that,
Introductions to APL. IMFFHO they all miss the boat.
I think at long last I can now write one which touches the button for a
bona fide J know-nothing.
Arrogance? Not a bit of it. I've simply looked at what other (more
pop
I do not think that "common usage" depends on ISO standards.
Or, at least, that does not match my understanding of how language use
works (and, for that matter, it does not match my understanding of how
standards bodies work).
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Ian Clark wrote:
Ah, I see. I thought to mention just in case the typical programmer domain
vocabulary could be avoided or replaced with more J-like terms, which seems
to intentionally have chosen simpler, more recognizable terms. I presumed
you were familiar with some of the existing material but I find it useful
Sorry, Joe, I want "common programmer terms" for "platform, program, etc",
i.e. terms common to all programmers, not just J-ers.
Especially not J-ers!
I tried looking up some of these terms in the Oxford Dictionary of English
(courtesy Apple) and I'm impressed. It seems it has authoritative but
s
I went back and looked at some of the existing material
This seems to be a good list of definitions with examples:
http://www.jsoftware.com/help/primer/contents.htm
This text seems devoid of too many terms:
http://www.jsoftware.com/books/pdf/easyj.pdf
Of course, I'm not reading these with "begin
That's a start. Your weblink has a Glossary mentioned in the left sidebar.
Which in itself is a bit disappointing because it only gives OS X-specific
terms.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> Are you looking for something like this?
>
> https://developer.apple.com/library/con
Defining fit as:
fit=:2 : '(u f.)!.n'
works.
1 2 laminate fit 10]3 4 5
1 2 10
3 4 5
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:46 PM, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Ian Clark wrote:
> > But I was writing tongue-in-cheek when I suggested Foreigns. Maybe the J
> > way of doing it is to
Are you looking for something like this?
https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/intro/intro.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002847-TPXREF101
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Ian Clark wrote:
> It's absurdly difficult to write a go
It's absurdly difficult to write a good "first-contact" text for J without
reference to a single accepted source of definitions like: platform,
program, app, script, variable, constant, function, array, string,
character, number …
Is there an ISO standard for common programmer terms (in English)?
22 matches
Mail list logo
