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.
The seven specification ur-languages
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: The seven specification ur-languages
#22Earlier 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…
It's possible that he's additionally making a double entendre about abstract tree structures.
Re: The seven specification ur-languages
#23Earlier 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.
Re: The seven specification ur-languages
#24Reading 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
#25Earlier 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…
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?
Re: The seven specification ur-languages
#27In 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). -…
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> 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?
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). -…