Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #94083 > unrolled thread

Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:33 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 19:49 -0700
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 20:52 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 21:18 -0700
      Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 15:06 +1000
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:16 +0300
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 00:32 -0700
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-19 10:44 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 19:13 -0400
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:02 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Anuradha Laxminarayan <lanuradha@gmail.com> - 2015-07-18 23:25 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 04:26 -0400
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 07:56 -0500
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 04:07 +1000
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-07-19 14:55 -0500
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 07:16 +1000
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-07-20 00:43 -0700
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-19 23:13 +0100
        Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:30 -0700
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:43 +1000
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 23:11 -0700
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-21 10:10 +0200
            Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 12:10 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:18 +1000
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:13 +0300
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-21 11:34 +0100
              Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 20:39 +1000
                Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-21 13:54 +0300
                  Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-08-09 00:27 +0300
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 09:29 -0700
                Re:  Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 06:34 -0700
                  OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 02:58 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 19:17 +0200
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:49 -0700
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-22 20:14 +0200
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-22 21:59 +0100
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 03:21 +1000
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-22 21:44 -0400
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:00 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:48 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 10:51 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:14 +1000
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 11:09 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-23 15:41 +1000
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 23:59 +0300
                          Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 07:03 +1000
                            Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:29 +0300
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 22:50 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-23 23:52 +0200
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-24 00:59 +0300
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:02 +1000
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 08:00 +1000
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-07-23 23:01 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-07-24 00:19 +0200
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 00:07 +0000
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 18:40 -0700
                                Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 19:03 -0700
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 20:16 -0700
                                  Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-24 14:13 +0000
                                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 08:45 -0700
                                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-24 16:58 +0100
                              Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 22:15 -0700
                      Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security   2.7 bugs be fixed?] Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-07-23 18:57 +1200
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 02:12 -0700
                        Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 05:52 -0700
                    Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-07-23 11:24 +0300
          Re: Devanagari int literals [was Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-21 18:57 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 02:44 -0400
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-19 05:11 -0400
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 07:30 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-19 15:00 +0100
    Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-19 14:45 +1000
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 18:20 -0700
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-07-20 13:05 +1000
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 20:41 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 02:46 +0100
        Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-19 19:16 -0700
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 12:59 +1000
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-20 11:59 +0100
          Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:04 -0700
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:15 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 13:33 +1000
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-21 00:45 -0400
            Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? breamoreboy@gmail.com - 2015-07-21 14:22 -0700
              Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 19:07 -0700
                Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-22 02:51 -0400
                  Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 16:37 -0700
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-07-20 02:25 -0400
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? dieter <dieter@handshake.de> - 2015-07-20 08:58 +0200
      Re: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 00:13 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#94387 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
> That's wrong. If we had such a reason, we could state it: "the reason
> we expect natural numbers are irreducible is ..." and fill in the
> blank. But I don't believe that such a reason exists (or at least, as
> far as we know).
>
> However, neither do we have any reason to think that they are *not*
> irreducible. Hence, we have no reason to think that they are anything
> but irreducible.

But by the same reasoning, we have no reason to think they are anything
but non-irreducible (reducible, I guess).  What the heck does it mean
for a natural number to be irreducible anyway?  I know what it means for
a polynomial to be irreducable, but the natural number analogy would be
a composite number, and there are plenty of those.

You might like this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110806055104/http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/hm.pdf

Remember also that "in ultrafinitism, Peano Arithmetic goes from 1 to
88" (due to Shachaf on irc #haskell).  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94389 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:18:23 PM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Remember also that "in ultrafinitism, Peano Arithmetic goes from 1 to
> 88" (due to Shachaf on irc #haskell).  ;-)

No No No
Its 42; Dont you know?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94419 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday 23 July 2015 03:48, Paul Rubin wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes:
>> That's wrong. If we had such a reason, we could state it: "the reason
>> we expect natural numbers are irreducible is ..." and fill in the
>> blank. But I don't believe that such a reason exists (or at least, as
>> far as we know).
>>
>> However, neither do we have any reason to think that they are *not*
>> irreducible. Hence, we have no reason to think that they are anything
>> but irreducible.
> 
> But by the same reasoning, we have no reason to think they are anything
> but non-irreducible (reducible, I guess).  What the heck does it mean
> for a natural number to be irreducible anyway?  

Reducible in the sense that we can define the natural numbers in terms of a 
simpler concept. E.g. the rationals can be reduced to the quotient of 
integers. One might argue that defining them in terms of sets is precisely 
that, but then we get into an argument as to which is simpler, natural 
numbers or sets?



-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94391 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 11:22:57 PM UTC+5:30, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 at 18:01 Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the critical factor there is that it is all in the past tense.
> 
> Today, I believe, the vast majority of mathematicians fall into two camps:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Those who just use numbers without worrying about defining them in some
> 
> deep or fundamental sense;
> 
> 
> 
> Probably. I'd say that worrying too much about the true essence of numbers is just Platonism. Numbers are a construct (a very useful one). There are many other constructs used within mathematics and there are numerous ways to connect them or define them in terms of each other. Usually these are referred to as "connections" or sometimes more formally as "isomorphisms" and they can be useful but don't need to have any metaphysical meaning.

Philosophers-of-mathematics decry platonism.
However from my experience (I am not a professional mathematician, though
Ive known good ones) most practicing-mathematicians proceed on the assumption 
that they *discover* math and not that they *invent* it.
To me this says that though they may not know the meaning or spelling of 
platonism, they all layman-adhere to it.

tl;dr To me (as unprofessional a musician as mathematician) I find it arbitrary
that Newton *discovered* gravity whereas Beethoven *composed* the 9th symphony.
Maybe Beethoven was sent my God to write Ode-to-Joy and reunite Europe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94425 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday 23 July 2015 04:09, Rustom Mody wrote:

> tl;dr To me (as unprofessional a musician as mathematician) I find it
> arbitrary that Newton *discovered* gravity whereas Beethoven *composed*
> the 9th symphony.

Newton didn't precisely *discover* gravity. I'm pretty sure that people 
before him didn't think that they were floating through the air 
weightless... 

*wink*


Did gravity exist before Newton? Then he discovered it (in some sense).

Did the 9th Symphony exist before Beethoven? No? Then he composed it.


-- 
Steve

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94464 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:

> Gravity existed before Newton, but the *theory* of gravity did not, so
> he composed the theory?

Ironically, gravity is maybe the least well understood phenomenon in
modern physics.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94465 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>:
>
>> Gravity existed before Newton, but the *theory* of gravity did not, so
>> he composed the theory?
>
> Ironically, gravity is maybe the least well understood phenomenon in
> modern physics.

Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
knowing how that gravity yank works.

Practicality beats purity?

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94466 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:

> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>
> Practicality beats purity?

Engineer!

At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable among
mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last remaining
research topics that didn't yet have an application.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94468 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
>> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
>> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
>> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
>> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>>
>> Practicality beats purity?
>
> Engineer!
>

Heard the one about the three engineers in the car that breaks down?

The chemical engineer suggests that they could have contaminated fuel. 
They should try and get a sample and get someone to take it to a lab for 
analysis.

The electrical engineer suggests that they check the battery and the 
leads for any problems.

The Microsoft engineer suggests that they close all the windows, get out 
of the car, get back in the car, open all the windows and see what happens.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94469 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
>> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
>> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
>> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
>> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>>
>> Practicality beats purity?
>
>Engineer!
>
>At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable among
>mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last remaining
>research topics that didn't yet have an application.
>
>
>Marko

I have a very good freind who is a knot-theorist.  (Chad Musick, who
may have proven something wonderful.) see: http://chadmusick.wikidot.com/knots
He says there are lots of applications for this in the field of circuit
board layouts.  And most mathematicians accept knot-theory as part of
topology.

Laura

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94470 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se>:

> In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>>At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable
>>among mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last
>>remaining research topics that didn't yet have an application.
>
> I have a very good freind who is a knot-theorist. (Chad Musick, who
> may have proven something wonderful.) see:
> http://chadmusick.wikidot.com/knots He says there are lots of
> applications for this in the field of circuit board layouts. And most
> mathematicians accept knot-theory as part of topology.

So topology, too, is lost.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94473 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se>:
>
>> In a message of Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:29:28 +0300, Marko Rauhamaa writes:
>>>At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable
>>>among mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last
>>>remaining research topics that didn't yet have an application.
>>
>> I have a very good freind who is a knot-theorist. (Chad Musick, who
>> may have proven something wonderful.) see:
>> http://chadmusick.wikidot.com/knots He says there are lots of
>> applications for this in the field of circuit board layouts. And most
>> mathematicians accept knot-theory as part of topology.
>
> So topology, too, is lost.

You remind me of the hipster mathematician cook, who burned himself by
calculating pie before it was cool.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94471 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Heard the one about the three engineers in the car that breaks down?
>
> The chemical engineer suggests that they could have contaminated fuel. They
> should try and get a sample and get someone to take it to a lab for
> analysis.
>
> The electrical engineer suggests that they check the battery and the leads
> for any problems.
>
> The Microsoft engineer suggests that they close all the windows, get out of
> the car, get back in the car, open all the windows and see what happens.
>

And the data scientist proved that the phenomenon is not wholly
unlikely, given the predicted average reliability of cars; further
studies would require improved sample size.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94472 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 2015-07-23 22:50, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
>>> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
>>> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
>>> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
>>> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>>>
>>> Practicality beats purity?
>>
>> Engineer!
>>
>
> Heard the one about the three engineers in the car that breaks down?
>
> The chemical engineer suggests that they could have contaminated fuel.
> They should try and get a sample and get someone to take it to a lab for
> analysis.
>
> The electrical engineer suggests that they check the battery and the
> leads for any problems.
>
> The Microsoft engineer suggests that they close all the windows, get out
> of the car, get back in the car, open all the windows and see what happens.
>
And an Apple engineer would suggest buying a new car that runs only on
its manufacturer's brand of fuel. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94474 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

In a message of Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:01:51 +0100, MRAB writes:

>And an Apple engineer would suggest buying a new car that runs only on
>its manufacturer's brand of fuel. :-)

Before you do that, read this:
http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/
(ps, if you can read Swedish, the Swedish version is a little more fun.)

Laura

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94476 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 23/07/2015 23:01, MRAB wrote:
> On 2015-07-23 22:50, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 23/07/2015 22:29, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
>>>> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
>>>> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
>>>> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
>>>> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>>>>
>>>> Practicality beats purity?
>>>
>>> Engineer!
>>>
>>
>> Heard the one about the three engineers in the car that breaks down?
>>
>> The chemical engineer suggests that they could have contaminated fuel.
>> They should try and get a sample and get someone to take it to a lab for
>> analysis.
>>
>> The electrical engineer suggests that they check the battery and the
>> leads for any problems.
>>
>> The Microsoft engineer suggests that they close all the windows, get out
>> of the car, get back in the car, open all the windows and see what
>> happens.
>>
> And an Apple engineer would suggest buying a new car that runs only on
> its manufacturer's brand of fuel. :-)
>

Like it, marks out of 10, 15 :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94477 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On 2015-07-23, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>:
>
>> Fortunately, we don't need to completely understand it. New Horizons
>> reached Pluto right on time after a decade of flight that involved
>> taking a left turn at Jupiter... we can predict exactly what angle to
>> fire the rockets at in order to get where we want to go, even without
>> knowing how that gravity yank works.
>>
>> Practicality beats purity?
>
> Engineer!
>
> At the time I was in college I heard topology was very fashionable among
> mathematicians. That was because it was one of the last remaining
> research topics that didn't yet have an application.

You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.

[Hey, how often do you get to use a topology  joke.]

--
Grant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94482 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:08:10 PM UTC-5, Grant Edwards wrote:
> You can always pick out the topologist at a conference:
> he's the one trying to dunk his coffee cup in his
> doughnut.
> 
> [Hey, how often do you get to use a topology  joke.]

Don't sale yourself short Grant. You get extra bonus points
here: (1) told a rare joke and (2) perpetuated the off topic
ramblings in an effort to deflect from main subject. Nice
multitasking dude!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94485 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
> You can always pick out the topologist at a conference: he's the one
> trying to dunk his coffee cup in his doughnut.
> [Hey, how often do you get to use a topology  joke.]

Did you hear about the idiot topologist?  He couldn't tell his butt from
a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two holes in the
ground.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#94487 — Re: OT Re: Math-embarrassment results in CS [was: Should non-security 2.7 bugs be fixed?]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 9:03:15 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Did you hear about the idiot topologist?  He couldn't tell his butt from
> a hole in the ground, but he *could* tell his butt from two holes in the
> ground.

This sounds more like a riddle than a joke. So in other
words: the message passing requires himself in one hole and
a clone of himself in another hole speaking the message
simultaneously?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web