It’s just about duck typing.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 20:39, Hauke Rehr wrote:
> The “same thing” is language.
> Why do we have the words “men” and “women”, they’re humans.
> You can always partition a set and label the subsets.
> This was done here. But it was done using a guide.
> As soon as you
The “same thing” is language.
Why do we have the words “men” and “women”, they’re humans.
You can always partition a set and label the subsets.
This was done here. But it was done using a guide.
As soon as you have a way to tell them apart, they
are “different things” even if there’s a common
super
I just believe that what we call artificial and natural language are a
manifestation of the same thing. Of course we can make distinctions
between both, talk about each separately and possibly reach agreement.
You could probably apply what you said about natural language to
untyped actor languages
I’ve been talking about languages known to me.
Yes, there was induction when I generalized.
Yes, this might not be logically justified.
You knew all of this.
You, too, use all these fuzzy words all the time
even though you have never been told a rigorous definition.
And we don’t need them. We unde
All languages are fixed over a given Planck time. What is it for a language
to be artificial or not? Can it be objectively proved either way?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 18:43, Hauke Rehr wrote:
> Natural languages are flexible. Recipients of messages are
> forgiving, trying to understand what you me
Natural languages are flexible. Recipients of messages are
forgiving, trying to understand what you meant.
The rules are dynamic and at times even local or personal.
This is much different from many artificial languages,
in particular from programming languages.
They have one set of fixed rules* (
Thanks. I was stuck on the agenda.
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 18:37, Henry Rich wrote:
>
> m"n where m is a gerund.
>
> Henry Rich
>
> On 1/17/2021 10:36 AM, Justin Paston-Cooper wrote:
> > What is the most elegant way to apply an array of functions to an
> > array of non-functions?
> >
> > On Sun, 1
m"n where m is a gerund.
Henry Rich
On 1/17/2021 10:36 AM, Justin Paston-Cooper wrote:
What is the most elegant way to apply an array of functions to an
array of non-functions?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 18:27, Henry Rich wrote:
It gives them a wrong mental model of rank, which they must unlearn
What is the most elegant way to apply an array of functions to an
array of non-functions?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 at 18:27, Henry Rich wrote:
>
> It gives them a wrong mental model of rank, which they must unlearn
> later. This can have serious consequences, particularly if they get
> the idea that
There is precedent in J for having a modifier give a result that applies
only in a restricted domain. That's what this is all about. My
original idea was that the derivative of u@> is meaningless but Raul's
argument is better. Replies to chat, please.
Henry Rich
On 1/17/2021 1:04 AM, Hauke
It gives them a wrong mental model of rank, which they must unlearn
later. This can have serious consequences, particularly if they get
the idea that u"n is 'like u with the rank set to n' (if that were true,
u"1"_1 would be the same as u"_ 1, which it isn't).
Ken thought you should learn J
11 matches
Mail list logo
