[deleted]
Logic for Programmers
31–40 of 53 posts
Re: Logic for Programmers
#32I would buy this book, but reading examples of simplify the condition is hard. I don't know the rules that apply to this. Do you know any other book that describes these rules?
The only one that isn't immediately obvious is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
Re: Logic for Programmers
#33Looks like a nice book, but.. I feel like no serious work with this ambition today should omit (maybe it is present, not sure from the ToC) the Curry-Howard isomorphism, propositions-as-types, and from it following the analogy between logics and lambda calculi. I really like this: https://disi.unitn.it/~bernardi/RSISE11/Papers/curry-howard.... I think every programmer should understand the consequences of CHI to the…
> I feel like no serious work with this ambition
What ambition? The book is an applied introduction for people who aren’t even familiar with what ∃ means. It’s 200 pages, which is at best comparable to a semester-long course.
Re: Logic for Programmers
#34Congratulations to Hillel for finishing the book!
Re: Logic for Programmers
#35Back when I was in college, I took some philosophy classes just for fun. I discovered when I took Symbolic Logic that while everyone else was struggling with the class, I was finding it pretty easy, because chaining together a proof in symbolic logic felt just like programming. It was the same mental steps: you have the starting conditions, there's an endpoint you want to reach, and you need to chain together these f…
One of the best programmers I ever worked with had a degree in philosophy, having gotten his education before there were formal Computer Science curriculums.
He was one of only two folks I've ever met outside of TeX User Group conferences who had read _The Art of Computer Programming_ (and had a well-thumbed set of Vols. 1--3 on a shelf next to his desk) and had written (and sold commercially) an operating system and full application suite, and when asked, always had a (wonderfully documented) bit of code to apply to any problem.
Re: Logic for Programmers
#36Looks like a nice book, but.. I feel like no serious work with this ambition today should omit (maybe it is present, not sure from the ToC) the Curry-Howard isomorphism, propositions-as-types, and from it following the analogy between logics and lambda calculi. I really like this: https://disi.unitn.it/~bernardi/RSISE11/Papers/curry-howard.... I think every programmer should understand the consequences of CHI to the…
> I feel like no serious work with this ambition What ambition? The book is an applied introduction for people who aren’t even familiar with what ∃ means. It’s 200 pages, which is at best comparable to a semester-long course.
Ambition to help programmers understand logic and how it relates to their discipline. But maybe you're right, it cannot be (currently) done in 200 pages, although I hope somebody proves that wrong.
It kinda reminds me of the debate whether functional programming is suitable for beginners, despite being simpler than imperative, while imperative is more familiar.
I am opposed to familiarity argument (I think classical predicate logic and existential quantifier are being taught in early high school, maybe sooner, so they are more familiar than lambda calculus).
Based on my own programming and math experience, I wish I learnt about functional programming, LC, dependent types and CHI much sooner. I don't think it has to be complicated, I know some attempts (although a bit incomplete) to show this to beginners - To Mock a Mockingbird, Haskell Programming from First Principles.
Re: Logic for Programmers
#37Back when I was in college, I took some philosophy classes just for fun. I discovered when I took Symbolic Logic that while everyone else was struggling with the class, I was finding it pretty easy, because chaining together a proof in symbolic logic felt just like programming. It was the same mental steps: you have the starting conditions, there's an endpoint you want to reach, and you need to chain together these f…
Constructing a formal proof is not only related to programming, it's the same thing. Curry–Howard correspondence:
"In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence is a direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs. It is also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
Re: Logic for Programmers
#38The footer say HTML code generated by Claude. But who did the css? and who did the js? Tangentially, is html code the correct term if all of it is in a single file or is it still html + css + js code seperately in a single file?
Check the file extension for a static single page app (SPA).
Is it something like .htcsjs, .hsj, or .HSJ on Windows? Or just .html?
More seriously, seems anything that can render .html handles the other two inline, so calling it HTML even with css and js in it seems fine?
Re: Logic for Programmers
#39Looking at the table of contents, I see no mention of Gödel/incompleteness theorems or limitations which is not a great sign. It does look well structured though but I'd probably recommend just going with "Introduction to Logic" by Tarski and "Metalogic. An introduction to the metatheory of standard first order logic." by Hunter. Those served me well and are fairly understandable for a non-mathematician (imo). Altern…
Even though I was doing Prolog (well… Mercury) every day at work, I struggled to get past the first few chapters of Art of Prolog :(
I guess I’m more mature now, so I’ll have yet another attempt… but I don’t like my chances!
Re: Logic for Programmers
#40Looking forward to reading this, I am one of the people who preordered. I've often heard people with degrees say that they regret not being better at the material in this book, so for many peope this will be a chance to practice these skills in a way that their CS/math/physics/engineering degrees didn't really enable.
Also, Hillel (author) has a blog that's absolutely worth checking out as well as some great conference talks which are on YouTube, he's on the short list of speakers who I automatically watch any of their talks.