The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#451

Post by godelski » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:03 AM UTC

LegionMammal978 wrote: post #328

godelski wrote: post #113

It think this is silly on multiple accounts. I'll claim that there's not real thing such as a "language brain" or "math brain." I'll also claim that most people don't know what math is, and that their evidence supports a "math brain". Math isn't about calculations/computations, it is about patterns. You get to algebra and think "what are these letters doing in my math" but once you get further you think "what are the…

By the very expansive definition that you advocate for, what exactly do we do that isn't math? One could argue that all we do is turn thoughts, senses, and memories into further thoughts and appropriate actions, which is applying a pattern, which is math. But at that point the definition is too broad to be helpful for anything but playing word games.

There are no rules. On the other hand, code is very formal. It is a set of rules. It has structures. There is wrongness and you can do verification that is not the result of opinion nor is it subjective.

But yes, math is very broad. But it doesn't cover everything. At least not at this time.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#452

Post by CyberDildonics » Mon, May 05, 2025, 2:23 AM UTC

godelski wrote: post #450

CyberDildonics wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now it's not math it's 'category theory' and that's dots and arrows and dots are anything. At what point does the abstract description just not offer any useful insight anymore? I'm surprised I hit a nerve with so many people. A lot of people had very good explanations for why you're pretty far off in trying to say two things are the same. Programming is much more like building a machine than any sort of straight mat…

> [No,] it's not math it's 'category theory' That's a wild claim considering Category Theory is a branch of mathematics | Category theory is a general theory of mathematical structures and their relations. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory It is necessary that you provide an alternative definition as to what "category theory" is, though I suspect it will make many category theorists and mathematicians u…

That's a wild claim considering Category Theory is a branch of mathematics

It's not a wild claim since you misquoted me.

A lot of non-mathematicians disagreed with mathematicians.

Mathematicians can claim whatever they want, when it comes to programming, programmers understand it better and they're trying to explain to you why this is nonsense. Vanderbilt claims to be "the harvard of the south" but wouldn't you know it, harvard doesn't claim to be "the vanderbilt of the north".

Show me programming languages designed by mathematicians to be 'mathematically pure' and I'll show you a language that hasn't been used to ship software that people want to use.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#453

Post by js8 » Mon, May 05, 2025, 9:13 AM UTC

bell-cot wrote: post #21

swayvil wrote: post #5

Math is a subset of language, surely.

It's easily argued that languages are subsets of math.

Easily? Not sure. But perhaps it's a linguistic version of the Skolem paradox. Looks like Hilary Putnam had some things to say on that..

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#454

Post by TheGrognardling » Tue, May 06, 2025, 3:28 PM UTC

john-h-k wrote: post #364

TheGrognardling wrote: post #160

I certainly don’t dispute the empirical validity of the findings from the study - but there are important nuances to consider as well. I am certainly more naturally-attuned to languages as-far as language-learning and reading than mathematics, but I have also found myself understanding more mathematical and theoretical linguistics as well. I also love programming. It wasn’t until high school, when I tested-into the h…

> I certainly don’t dispute the empirical validity of the findings from the study You absolutely should. Tiny sample size and poor statistical method. It is p-hacking plain and simple

Okay, yeah - fair point. I admittedly didn't look too closely at the article before posting this - and I'm not too statistically-minded in many respects. But upon further investigation, yeah, you seem to be right. I think this article is really just promotional material for something.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#455

Post by florbnit » Tue, May 06, 2025, 7:51 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #203

florbnit wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It think this is silly on multiple accounts. I'll claim that there's not real thing such as a "language brain" or "math brain." It seems plainly obvious that this language just means “areas of brain that activate when dealing with math problems” vs “areas of brain that activate when dealing with language problems” and yes there is hard evidence that there is a difference between them.

Please reread my comment in full. I'm willing to bet we disagree on the definition of math. I'll strongly insist that the one I'm using is common among mathematicians. If you'd like to retort by saying it's about semantics then congrats, we're on the same page (and can be verified by reading you sibling comments and/or my replies to some of them)

It has nothing to do with the definition of math. If you put people in an MRI and give them random problems then you’ll notice a distribution in the patterns of brain activity that are distinct. Some of these groupings we’ll call “math like” because the problems are more like mathematics than linguistics. And in the other distribution we’ll call them “word like” because the problems fall into the category we associate with word problems.

The fact that we see separate patterns of brain activity is the interesting part not any semantic argument about what you or mathematicians feel should be defined as being math or not.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#456

Post by seadan83 » Fri, May 09, 2025, 6:51 PM UTC

voidspark wrote: post #417

seadan83 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost the argument of programming vs computer science coming out here. This is math: {x | x.id = 1} OTOH, a SQL query is a SQL query. This thread is hilarious though. It's like - Cashier: here is your change. - Customer: you did math! - Cashier, no, I gave you change. - Customer: that IS math! - Cashier: You mean, I used math to give you change? - Customer: No, giving change doesn't use math, it IS math!!!!" [2…

Code is logical in nature and is defined by mathematics.

I'd agree code is usually governed by mathematics, not defined by it though.

Goes back to this ridiculous proposition:

- Cashier: You mean, I used math to give you change?

- Customer: No, giving change doesn't use math, it IS math!!!!" [2]

The proposition is that "code IS math", not defined by, not uses, not inspired by, not relies on, not modeled after, but IS.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#457

Post by seadan83 » Fri, May 09, 2025, 7:33 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #413

seadan83 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand you have strong opinions, I just don't understand why. As someone that is "on the other side of the fence", and getting flamed for it, maybe I can shed some light since I have the other perspective as well. IMO, The reason for not seeing eye to eye is (for example) akin to saying "word problems are math". (Thinking of a grade school word problems for common reference). Yes, they are readily mapped to m…

> That's where the talking past each other comes in... Then sorry, but that's your own damn fault. I was clear about my definition and quoted a famous mathematician to give some authority, to not be "trust me even though I'm some rando". The way to respond to that is not "you're wrong, trust me, I'm some rando". Yes, I agree we're misunderstanding each other because we're using different definitions but "you've" reje…

The way I'm responding I'd more characterize as: "wait, if what you are saying is true, then this other thing should be true too, but it does not seem to be. That would indicate what you are saying is not true."

In another thread, you characterized my response as stating: " ¬(A ↦ B) ⟹ ¬(B ↦ A)" (and this is a great example of language not being math, but math being language!). That was not at all my claim.

My claim is "I believe you are saying 'A = B'. It appears that 'B != A', therefore 'A != B'." My only claims are

(1) I believe you are writing to convey that you mean Math IS Language in the sense they are equal, identical, interchangeable, and fully equivalent, and bi-directionally so

(2) that: B != A

The only results can either be:

- "yeah, because B != A, the statement A = B is not true"

- Your claim (1) is false, I'm not actually saying "A = B"

- Your claim (2) is false, "B = A" is in fact true. I would find that to be an interesting assertion and would have loved to explore more why you think that.

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#458

Post by seadan83 » Wed, May 14, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #427

seadan83 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "is", typically refers to the logical equals operator (written as "="). Let A = Math, and let B = Language, the phrase "Math is Language" is therefore "A = B". My claim is that "B != A", which implies "A != B" because "!=" is reflexive. "A != B" then contradicts the claim "A = B". In words: because "language is not math", therefore it cannot be true that "math is language". This is not number theory, not set…

As I said elsewhere (here for others), I'm not going to play this game of * willful misinterpretation.* Your very words do not hold up to the same bar your are attempting to hold mine to. I know you are upset you got caught in a lie, but fuck around and find out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Domain experts can recognize other domain experts pretty easily > No, my counter claim is simply that because "B != A" therefore "A != B" We all k…

The equality relationship is symmetric, "For every a and b, if a = b, then b = a" [1]. This holds for the negation as well.

Or, "Properties of Equality... The [equality] relation must also be symmetric. If two terms refer to the same thing, it does not matter which one we write first in an equation. ∀x.∀y.(x=y ⇒ y=x)" [2]

The 'is' relationship in logic is understood to be equality. The 'is a' relationship in logic is subset. Colloquially, the word "is" can be either one though.

I notice in your counter example you swapped the "is" relationship with "is a". Keeping the "is" relationship: "A rectangle is not square" (true generally, but false for specific cases for rectangles). That is really the distinction, the sometimes true vs always true.

Let's stick to the precise definition of "is" to mean a logical equality from here on please, and be precise when we use "is" vs "is a" and never infer "is" to actually mean "is a".

So, with "Math is a language" vs "Math is language". Which do you mean?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_(mathematics)

[2] http://logic.stanford.edu/intrologic/extras/equality.html

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#459

Post by seadan83 » Wed, May 14, 2025, 9:22 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #449

seadan83 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A common use of be is to express set membership rather than identity Google for "logical "is a" vs logical "is"". Google AI answers this: > "is" typically represents an equality relation Rest is from the AI response: In logic, "is" typically represents an equality relation, while "is a" (or "is of the type") represents an inclusion relation. "Is" indicates that two things are the same or identical, while "is a" ind…

Try applying some thought. You asked a stupid question and you got a stupid answer. What conclusions do you think that supports? What does "silk is cloth" mean?

"silk is cloth" is not true except for the colloquial interpretation that infers "silk can sometimes be a cloth". Given the clarifications, it seems the OP is intending to say it's an exact equality and not a colloquial definition that actually means "subset".

I'll note, I have not asked any questions other than (paraphrasing): "what do you mean precisely?" To which, I have not gotten any answers other than trolling and flaming; and examples that all conveniently swap "is" with "is a".

Re: The language brain matters more for programming than the math brain? (2020)

#460

Post by seadan83 » Wed, May 14, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

seba_dos1 wrote: post #404

seadan83 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You point out the "is a" relationship, not the "is" relationship, they are different. [0] Find examples with two singular nouns and just the word 'is'. The phrase in question: 'Math is language' is an example, or something like 'food is love' is too. I concede you could interpret those last few sentences with poetic license to be read more like: "A is a form of B", or "A is a B" - though that is not what was written…

> You point out the "is a" relationship, not the "is" relationship, they are different. Well, what you reacted to was, let me copy'n'paste, "Math is a language". It was you who insisted that "is" in this sentence maps to "equals" relation, so thanks for agreeing that you were wrong.

I'm reacting to: "Math is language. 'Everything' is language. Language is the image of reality."

There are other discussions which say:

- Math is a subset of language, surely

- It's easily argued that languages are subsets of math.

Given that context, the distinction seems to be very important.

I find the following idea (paraphrasing) to be very interesting: "not only is math a subset of language, but the language and math are equal sets." I also think it's not true, but am curious how a person would support this assertion. So, my challenge is, because the logical "is" relationship is reflexive and the reflexive property does not hold here - how can this be true? The most satisfying answer has been (paraphrasing) "cause I'm using non-precise language and you should just infer what I meant." Which is fine I guess..