User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default Building Abstractions with Functions and Axiomatic Language

    Building Abstractions with Functions

    We are about to study the idea of a computational process. Computational processes are abstract beings that inhabit computers. As they evolve, processes manipulate other abstract things called data. The evolution of a process is directed by a pattern of rules called a program. People create programs to direct processes. In effect, we conjure the spirits of the computer with our spells.

    The programs we use to conjure processes are like a sorcerer's spells. They are carefully composed from symbolic expressions in arcane and esoteric programming languages that prescribe the tasks we want our processes to perform.

    A computational process, in a correctly working computer, executes programs precisely and accurately. Thus, like the sorcerer's apprentice, novice programmers must learn to understand and to anticipate the consequences of their conjuring.


    Axiomatic Language

    We assert that the ideal programming language should be a specification language – you tell the computer what to do without telling it how to do it. Specification definitions should be smaller, more readable, and more reusable than procedural code constrained by efficiency. Thus a specification language should give the programmer greater productivity. Specifications should also be easier to validate as correct. The challenge is to automatically generate efficient programs from specifications by a provably-correct process – the “automatic programming” problem.

    We assert that the ideal programming language should be a metalanguage – able to define within itself other language features and paradigms which can then be used for specification without one leaving the original language. We want a “universal” language that can incorporate the specification advantages of any other language.

    But an ideal language should also be minimal – as small and simple as possible without sacrificing expressiveness. We see elegance in reducing language to its most fundamental core. Nothing would be built-in that can be defined. Such a minimal language must also be highly extensible so that those features that are not built-in can be easily defined and used as if they had been built-in.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    We need schematics to ensure that subsequent processes operate as commanded right?

    Computer is a good working metaphor I think. It seems largely about synthesis. From finite blocks the infinite is made.

    Start with definitions, so the parts actually have structure, and then they can make something up I would think, literally and analogy-wise.

    Try building with goo. You could harden it, but that's giving it definition. Therefore, definitions used properly aren't restrictive!

  3. #3

    Default

    I never quite understand your aims, but I have a strange fascination with many of the same things you do.

    I've wanted to make "The Ultimate Programming Language" since around the time I started to program. Maybe everyone who starts to program, and enjoy it, has that impulse, because it doesn't take much to get programmers to give plenty of opinions on what such a language should be like.

    I get the idea that you aren't limiting your scope to computer programs, however. I suppose with the popularization of 3D printing, and what seems now to be an inevitable future of mass customization, we could see programming as an essential skill, like reading, writing, and arithmetic.

    But like I said at the beginning, I am not sure what you're aims are.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I never quite understand your aims, but I have a strange fascination with many of the same things you do.
    That's cool, I guess we're more exploring by nature than average. But ya, our ends may be different.

    I've wanted to make "The Ultimate Programming Language" since around the time I started to program. Maybe everyone who starts to program, and enjoy it, has that impulse, because it doesn't take much to get programmers to give plenty of opinions on what such a language should be like.
    Frankly, I don't know anything about real programming too much beyond just using computers to their full functionality (but not making them that way) and stuff that's more arbitrary like Megaman video games.

    I'm interested in this programming idea however as a philosophy, since it deals with designing or even altering the matrix. And maybe I could even one day learn to program real computers. Then later, in the far future, my philosophy for programming schematics will be applied to the foundations of existence itself, hurrah!

    I get the idea that you aren't limiting your scope to computer programs, however. I suppose with the popularization of 3D printing, and what seems now to be an inevitable future of mass customization, we could see programming as an essential skill, like reading, writing, and arithmetic.
    Yes, my ambitions for it are very much on a grandiose level, as described above. I still though think that real computers are fun, and being able to program them is great.

    But like I said at the beginning, I am not sure what you're aims are.
    Well, I'm really not sure yet myself. I/we are pretty much stuck in the planning stages as of now.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I never quite understand your aims, but I have a strange fascination with many of the same things you do.
    I'm mostly sure that his aims are to unite spirituality, technology, and science by throwing out the old rule books of spirituality and melding the spiritual concepts with today's theoretical physics of cascading dimensions and popular theories of computer science.

    He's a spiritualist that wants to explain spiritualism by science, a noble effort but most likely all for naught.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    He's a spiritualist that wants to explain spiritualism by science, a noble effort but most likely all for naught.
    You folks seem to associate success with ideas actually translating into the real world and being used by people. I don't. What interests me is the actual schematics, not their social status.

Similar Threads

  1. If you need help with functions and your type...
    By Thursday in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-09-2010, 07:33 PM
  2. The Eight Functions and Fence-Building
    By INTJMom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 01:09 PM
  3. Functions and MBTI types getting along
    By alcea rosea in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 11:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO