[flagged]
Also, it doesn't make sense to price homes in absolute terms. Surely relative to wage would be a better indication of the health of the market. Unless we can bring the wealthy to heel of course.
If you can't learn from a shallow dismissal, that's your problem.
[dead]
Can you come up with some conception of recursion that doesn't involve symbols referring to themselves, directly or indirectly? Ie what is left of recursion when you remove the linguistic component?
I agree that there's enormous value in carving out mathematics from other linguistic reasoning, but I don't see defining as something as mathematic rather than linguistic is generally useful. You use the same skills to…
> We don't call this recursive... it's just incrementing x That's not a recursive function as it's written, but you could certainly consider it a form of symbolic recursion. This just isn't a very useful…
That's fair. I agree that there's more to problem solving than just linguistic ability, so I rescind my claim that they're indistinguishable, but I still think there's a deep relationship between the two. I have a very…
There are two ways that recursion intersects with language that are relevant here: 1. Our spoken and especially written grammar is recursive. We do handle this unconsciously. This is not related to our ability to reason…
Recursive functions are just a subset of all possibly recursive concepts. In the case of human spoken language, the recursion exists in our characterization of the grammar. You could just as easily frame this in…
If you define recursion as a symbol referencing itself, either directly or indirectly, and if you define language as a system of relating symbols to each other, recursion is a linguistic concept, it is a concept that…
To be clear, the symbols themselves don't bother me so much as trying to refer to them in spoken english. I have no particular beef with the use of symbols in code, which can be quite readable.
> That problem solving skills are relevant is pretty obvious, but language less so. To me, problem solving ability is precisely the same as the ability to articulate the problem and a solution. I don't see a major…
I don't really know what you mean by "conjecture", but I thought apriori was implied by positing it as a linguistic construct. "Fundamental" doesn't imply empiricism at all. All of apriori knowledge for a language is a…
I'd argue none of that math is really necessary. While I have used most of my classes at least once, it was never a barrier to advancement in my career. Hell you could say the same thing about any of the theory. Like…
I can't speak for other forms of FP, but symbol operators make communicating about haskell very annoying. Outside of that FP seems to be doing fine, IMO.
How do you communicate an inductive proof without language? Even formal symbolic logic is fundamentally linguistic.
I'm a terrible speller; it's taken me ten years of typing "ammend" to learn its proper spelling. It also sort of goes against the "programmers are lazy" meme: why memorize what a computer can detect and correct?
100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I'm terrible with arithmetic but great with symbols and relations. Recursion is also fundamentally linguistic, and although our internal "stacks" for processing it naturally…
I highly recommend reading Schumpeter, both "Business Cycles" and "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy". He discusses how motivations fundamentally change after profit margins peak and argues that profit after this…
This is true, and it is disgusting.
[flagged]
Also, it doesn't make sense to price homes in absolute terms. Surely relative to wage would be a better indication of the health of the market. Unless we can bring the wealthy to heel of course.
[flagged]
If you can't learn from a shallow dismissal, that's your problem.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
Can you come up with some conception of recursion that doesn't involve symbols referring to themselves, directly or indirectly? Ie what is left of recursion when you remove the linguistic component?
I agree that there's enormous value in carving out mathematics from other linguistic reasoning, but I don't see defining as something as mathematic rather than linguistic is generally useful. You use the same skills to…
> We don't call this recursive... it's just incrementing x That's not a recursive function as it's written, but you could certainly consider it a form of symbolic recursion. This just isn't a very useful…
That's fair. I agree that there's more to problem solving than just linguistic ability, so I rescind my claim that they're indistinguishable, but I still think there's a deep relationship between the two. I have a very…
There are two ways that recursion intersects with language that are relevant here: 1. Our spoken and especially written grammar is recursive. We do handle this unconsciously. This is not related to our ability to reason…
Recursive functions are just a subset of all possibly recursive concepts. In the case of human spoken language, the recursion exists in our characterization of the grammar. You could just as easily frame this in…
If you define recursion as a symbol referencing itself, either directly or indirectly, and if you define language as a system of relating symbols to each other, recursion is a linguistic concept, it is a concept that…
To be clear, the symbols themselves don't bother me so much as trying to refer to them in spoken english. I have no particular beef with the use of symbols in code, which can be quite readable.
> That problem solving skills are relevant is pretty obvious, but language less so. To me, problem solving ability is precisely the same as the ability to articulate the problem and a solution. I don't see a major…
I don't really know what you mean by "conjecture", but I thought apriori was implied by positing it as a linguistic construct. "Fundamental" doesn't imply empiricism at all. All of apriori knowledge for a language is a…
I'd argue none of that math is really necessary. While I have used most of my classes at least once, it was never a barrier to advancement in my career. Hell you could say the same thing about any of the theory. Like…
I can't speak for other forms of FP, but symbol operators make communicating about haskell very annoying. Outside of that FP seems to be doing fine, IMO.
How do you communicate an inductive proof without language? Even formal symbolic logic is fundamentally linguistic.
I'm a terrible speller; it's taken me ten years of typing "ammend" to learn its proper spelling. It also sort of goes against the "programmers are lazy" meme: why memorize what a computer can detect and correct?
100% agree, I've been saying this for years. I'm terrible with arithmetic but great with symbols and relations. Recursion is also fundamentally linguistic, and although our internal "stacks" for processing it naturally…
I highly recommend reading Schumpeter, both "Business Cycles" and "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy". He discusses how motivations fundamentally change after profit margins peak and argues that profit after this…
This is true, and it is disgusting.