Live data from Hacker News

The seven specification ur-languages

buttondown.email

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m assuming it is something like a Cradle of Civilization (the city of Ur is recognized as one of a handful). They are civilizations of which all other civilizations are derived…they have no predecessor civilizations.

You're assuming wrong, I'm afraid. No relation to the city of Ur.

I get that the prefix entered our lexicon from german, but frankly you don't have enough information to say that there is no relation. The city of Ur is 4000 years older than Old High German, and Ur has been used as a metaphor for the origin of things for thousands of years, even ancient Greece. You can't definitively say that the idea of Ur as an origin of civilization had no influence on german.

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#22
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this clearly references this wonderful article: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... The idea is that our taxonomy selects a group named "trees", but there's little internal coherence in that group, which probably results in more online hilly wars in the plant-loving communities than we the laypeople can think of. See also: is Pluto a planet?

I don't think this article is referring to physical organisms known as trees (as your article does). It's talking about abstract tree structures, in particular: 1. There is a coherent parent-child relationship 2. Children have only one parent 3. Children have no lateral relationships with other children 4. Relationships are mediated through parents, not e.g. grandparent-child directly. 5. We can coherently differenti…

I'm 95% sure that the author (who is on HN[1]) is at least referring to the article "There's No Such Thing As A Tree" in his line "There is no such thing as a tree." - regardless of the fact that the article as a whole isn't about trees made of wood.

It's possible that he's additionally making a double entendre about abstract tree structures.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hwayne

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming wrong, I'm afraid. No relation to the city of Ur.

I get that the prefix entered our lexicon from german, but frankly you don't have enough information to say that there is no relation. The city of Ur is 4000 years older than Old High German, and Ur has been used as a metaphor for the origin of things for thousands of years, even ancient Greece. You can't definitively say that the idea of Ur as an origin of civilization had no influence on german.

But in Old German, the prefix ir-/ur- meant "thoroughly", from Proto-Germanic uz-, meaning "out", ultimately from Proto-Indo-European úd-, meaning "outward"/"upward", which is also the origin of the English word "out", as well as the prefix "or-", as in "ordeal". Proto-Indo-European coexisted with Ur, and it doesn't really make sense that Ur would lead to the PIE prefix úd-.

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#24
The feasibility of automatic verification and ease of specification played incredibly important roles in the historical development of specification languages. This raises an interesting question: what new computational tools are coming on the scene, and what role will those tools play in the next generation of specification/programming languages?

Reading this article, I was struck by how noneterminism was all over the place in ur-specification languages. I think the answer to the question above will turn out to be something about: 1. nondeterminism, and 2. LLMs, RL, and diffusion as a way of resolving/refining nondeterminism.

That aside, I like the taxonomy. Some personal footnotes:

1. I would list Hoare Logic as the ur-language instead of GCL. Dynamic logics are in this family. I had never considered Spin and dynamic logic as being related in this way. That's kind of neat, and I'm glad I read the article.

2. I would probably give type theories a place in the list, even though you have to squint a little bit to make them fit in a list of specification languages.

3. The history of temporal logics is fascinating, and https://www.cs.rice.edu/~vardi/papers/etaps01-ver13.pdf is probably on my top ten list of papers on formal methods.

4. I feel exactly the same way about Petri Nets -- kind of neat, feel powerful, but never quite know what to do with them. Maybe now that we're returning to office I will get a copy of "Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems" for the train ride.

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure evolution is tree like? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution That said, some categories are real, precise, and useful, like integers vs reals vs complex numbers.

Convergent evolution doesn't make evolution non-tree-like, that's just a tree with similar-looking branches or leaves at different locations. Pretty standard really. Convergent evolution makes taxonomy less tree-like. Carcinization is a good example: it makes lots of things crab-like, so from a surface taxonomic point of view a flattop crab, a coconut crab, and marbled crab are all pretty crabby. But they're complete…

> Convergent evolution makes taxonomy less tree-like.

Yes, exactly. "All taxonomies are don't broken" is not at all "incompatible with the theory of evolution," is the point. The taxonomic layer is pasted on top.

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#26

> All taxonomies are broken, full stop. Your categories are gonna be completely wrong and everybody’s going to argue over every single thing. There is no such thing as a tree. Is this a serious statement? If so, wouldn't it be incompatible with the theory of evolution? Would an alien taxonomy of human binary numbers not be a legitimate tree?

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#27
This is a good list but is almost more accurately called a list of modeling languages. At the very least it’s a very particular interpretation of specification, which makes sense from a TLA+ expert but is incomplete.

In particular I think there are a few candidate ur-specification languages that could be included:

* first-order logic, this captures what almost every deductive verifier uses, and has a surprisingly rich diversity in features.

* concurrent separation logic, this was a breakthrough development and every language for specifying concurrent programs is some flavor of this now.

* dependent type theory? The big issue is that as the author points out, taxonomies fail. Dependent type theories give rise to languages which are both “specification” and “programming” languages.

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#28

> All taxonomies are broken, full stop. Your categories are gonna be completely wrong and everybody’s going to argue over every single thing. There is no such thing as a tree. Is this a serious statement? If so, wouldn't it be incompatible with the theory of evolution? Would an alien taxonomy of human binary numbers not be a legitimate tree?

The thing with taxonomies is that trying to make a category more precise tends to exclude things you want to include in it, and vice-versa. It is especially easy to find examples of this in nature, because nature has existed since long before humans had opinions about how things should be organized. What is a cat? It's a small furry quadruped in family Felidae. - Exception: cats may be quite large (lions, tigers). -…

I definitely understand that the majority of taxonomies are problematic for the reasons you cited. When OP said "no such thing as a tree", I thought OP meant a taxonomic tree, not a literal plant tree, hence my example of binary numbers! Thanks for clarifying.

That said, taxonomic groupings can have both wide consensus and be useful, can't they? (Hand on chin... monotremes? hominids??)

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#29
post #3

> All taxonomies are broken, full stop. Your categories are gonna be completely wrong and everybody’s going to argue over every single thing. There is no such thing as a tree. Is this a serious statement? If so, wouldn't it be incompatible with the theory of evolution? Would an alien taxonomy of human binary numbers not be a legitimate tree?

Well, this clearly references this wonderful article: https://eukaryotewritesblog.com/2021/05/02/theres-no-such-th... The idea is that our taxonomy selects a group named "trees", but there's little internal coherence in that group, which probably results in more online hilly wars in the plant-loving communities than we the laypeople can think of. See also: is Pluto a planet?

Yeah I definitely did not get the reference, I thought OP literally meant that taxonomic trees in general are useless and/or don't exist!

Re: The seven specification ur-languages

#30

> All taxonomies are broken, full stop. Your categories are gonna be completely wrong and everybody’s going to argue over every single thing. There is no such thing as a tree. Is this a serious statement? If so, wouldn't it be incompatible with the theory of evolution? Would an alien taxonomy of human binary numbers not be a legitimate tree?

The thing with taxonomies is that trying to make a category more precise tends to exclude things you want to include in it, and vice-versa. It is especially easy to find examples of this in nature, because nature has existed since long before humans had opinions about how things should be organized. What is a cat? It's a small furry quadruped in family Felidae. - Exception: cats may be quite large (lions, tigers). -…

should probably also reference metacrap here https://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/links/pdf/preserving/8_1... especially section 2.5 Schemas aren't neutral
Post reply on HN