Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'think,': 0.05; 'nasty': 0.07; 'wednesday,': 0.07; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; '22,': 0.09; 'creighton': 0.09; 'falls': 0.09; "person's": 0.09; 'received:openend.se': 0.09; 'received:theraft.openend.se': 0.09; 'reminded': 0.09; 'subject:2.7': 0.09; 'subsequently': 0.09; 'threshold': 0.09; 'url:blog': 0.10; 'language,': 0.11; 'wed,': 0.15; "'it'": 0.16; '>on': 0.16; '>to': 0.16; 'at.': 0.16; 'behaviour.': 0.16; 'cc:addr:lac': 0.16; 'cc:addr:openend.se': 0.16; 'ego': 0.16; 'from:addr:lac': 0.16; 'from:addr:openend.se': 0.16; 'from:name:laura creighton': 0.16; 'improper': 0.16; 'indians': 0.16; 'lisp': 0.16; 'message-id:@fido.openend.se': 0.16; 'received:89.233': 0.16; 'received:89.233.217': 0.16; 'received:89.233.217.133': 0.16; 'received:fido': 0.16; 'received:fido.openend.se': 0.16; 'semantically': 0.16; 'stupidity': 0.16; 'subject:non': 0.16; 'subject:skip:e 10': 0.16; 'surprising': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'obviously': 0.16; 'laura': 0.18; 'pointer': 0.18; '2015': 0.20; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'cc:2**1': 0.22; 'meant': 0.22; 'see:': 0.22; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.24; 'example': 0.26; 'sense': 0.26; 'question': 0.27; 'function': 0.28; 'this.': 0.28; '-0700,': 0.29; 'arithmetic': 0.29; 'received:se': 0.29; 'subject: [': 0.29; 'url:wikipedia': 0.29; 'cc:no real name:2**1': 0.29; 'too.': 0.30; 'url:wiki': 0.30; 'programmers': 0.30; 'extend': 0.31; 'especially': 0.32; 'german': 0.32; 'run': 0.33; 'point': 0.33; '(for': 0.34; 'skip:d 20': 0.34; 'that,': 0.34; 'world,': 0.35; 'done': 0.35; 'functions.': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; "isn't": 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'too': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; '(and': 0.36; '(i.e.': 0.36; 'url:2012': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'thanks': 0.37; 'thought': 0.37; 'things': 0.38; 'doing': 0.38; 'someone': 0.38; 'skip:o 20': 0.38; 'goes': 0.39; 'url:en': 0.39; 'does': 0.39; 'subject:-': 0.39; 'rather': 0.39; 'url:in': 0.39; 'where': 0.40; 'some': 0.40; 'ever': 0.60; 'your': 0.60; 'header :Message-Id:1': 0.61; 'side': 0.62; 'is.': 0.63; 'more': 0.63; 'you.': 0.64; 'believe': 0.66; 'god': 0.67; 'therefore': 0.67; 'day': 0.67; 'subject': 0.70; 'apart': 0.70; 'jul': 0.72; 'url:htm': 0.75; 'received:89': 0.80; '>if': 0.84; '>of': 0.84; 'america.': 0.84; 'areas.': 0.84; 'divergent': 0.84; 'nouns,': 0.84; 'repeat.': 0.84; 'url:03': 0.84; 'utc+5:30,': 0.84; 'western': 0.89; 'am.': 0.91; 'calculus': 0.91; 'habit': 0.91; 'subject:results': 0.91; 'thing,': 0.93; 'trained': 0.95 To: Rustom Mody cc: python-list@python.org, lac@openend.se From: Laura Creighton Subject: Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] In-Reply-To: Message from Rustom Mody of "Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:49:13 -0700." <6b96ed18-ba44-4942-8333-a1955c8c0d0c@googlegroups.com> References: <7083e494-6192-4acb-aea9-216d858171bc@googlegroups.com> <55ab2b57$0$1664$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <76252f32-64e9-405b-84a2-996200a6fa6f@googlegroups.com> <87twsxj2ot.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <55ae2171$0$1646$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <890a3d61-2824-48e3-be19-56d0ff63d6d9@googlegroups.com><55afcbbf$0$1648$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <6b96ed18-ba44-4942-8333-a1955c8c0d0c@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <29955.1437588890.1@fido> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:14:50 +0200 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.9 (theraft.openend.se [89.233.217.130]); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:14:52 +0200 (CEST) X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 95 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1437588903 news.xs4all.nl 2881 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44660 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:94392 In a message of Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:49:13 -0700, Rustom Mody writes: >Nice Thanks for that Laura! >I am reminded of > >| The toughest job Indians ever had was explaining to the whiteman who th= eir = >| noun-god is. Repeat. That's because God isn't a noun in Native America. >| God is a verb! >>From http://hilgart.org/enformy/dma-god.htm > >On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:48:38 PM UTC+5:30, Laura Creighton wrot= e: >> One way to look at this is to see that arithmetic is _behaviour_. >> Like all behaviours, it is subject to reification: >> see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification > >This is just a pointer to various disciplines/definitions... >Which did you intend? I meant -- depending on your background -- go find a meaning for reification that makes sense to you. And then extend this to some other areas. >By and large (for me, a CSist) I regard reification as philosophicalese f= or >what programmers call first-classness. Me too. But there are more people out there who know something about reification than there are that know about first classness. >As someone brought up on Lisp and FP, was trained to regard reification/f= irstclassness >as wonderful. However after seeing the overwhelming stupidity of OOP-tre= ated-as-a-philosophy, >Ive become suspect of this. >If http://steve-yegge.blogspot.in/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.h= tml >was just a joke it would be a laugh. I believe it is an accurate descript= ion >of the brain-pickling it does to its religious adherents. >And so now I am suspect of firstclassness in FP as well: >http://blog.languager.org/2012/08/functional-programming-philosophical.ht= ml >(last point) > >> = >> and especially as it is done in the German language, reification has >> this nasty habit of turning behaviours (i.e. things that are most like >> a verb) into nouns, or things that require nouns. Even the word >> _behaviour_ is suspect, as it is a noun. = >> = >> This noun-making can be contagious .... if we thought of the world, not >> as a thing, but happening-now (and see how hard it is to not have >> a noun like 'process' there) would we come to the question of 'Who >> made it?' For there would be no 'it' there to point at. >> = >> It is not too surprising that the mathematicians have run into the >> limits of reification. There is only so much 'pretend this is a >> thing' you can do under relentless questioning before the 'thing-ness' >> just goes away ... > >Yes but one person's threshold where thing-ness can be far away from anot= her's. >Newton used thingness of =E2=88=9E (infinitesimals) with impunity and inv= ented calculus. >Gauss found this very improper and re-invented calculus without 'complete= d infinity'. >Yet mathematicians habitually find that, for example generating functions= that >are obviously divergent (=E2=88=B4 semantically meaningless) are perfectl= y serviceable >to solve recurrences; solutions which can subsequently be verified withou= t the >generating functions. >Which side should be embarrassed? Embarassment is a function of the ego. The ego is _another_ one of those = nouns where if you try to stalk it, it falls apart because it was produced by behaviour, rather than the cause of behaviour. Descartes: I think, therefore I am. (Because there must be an I that is doing the thinking.) Modern Day Western Neurologist: Thinking is going on. Therefore an I is produced. Laura