Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

massivesci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–465 of 465 posts

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

#461

Post by seadan83 »

godelski wrote: post #425
seba_dos1 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Honestly I don't think his point even stands. We were using English to communicate and English doesn't have the strict rules of mathematics. That's literally why we created math (which I'll gladly call "a class of languages"). He's right, "is" maps to "equivalent" but he's also wrong because "is" also maps to "subset" and several other things. "Is" is a surjection. The problem here all comes down to seadan83 acting i…

> We were using English to communicate and English doesn't have the strict rules of mathematics.

Agree.

> He's right, "is" maps to "equivalent" but he's also wrong because "is" also maps to "subset" and several other things. "Is" is a surjection.

I agree. So, why can't either interpretation be valid? Perhaps, because one is obviously not true? Yet, it seemed like there was a clarification that the obviously not true relationship was the intended one!!!

Godelski previously wrote: "Coding IS math. Not "coding uses math".

I interpreted that clarification to mean you intended "is" to be a strict "is". Particularly given the other context and discussion of "is a" in other threads. I suspect now you were perhaps emphasizing "uses a" vs "is a", rather than "uses a" vs "is". Not a satisfying conclusion here. It would be a lot more interesting if the precision could have been there and had we been able to instead talk about whether all coding languages form an abstract algebra or not. Or perhaps use that line of reasoning to explain why all coding is a form of math. That would have been far more interesting..

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

#462

Post by seadan83 »

godelski wrote: post #440
seba_dos1 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's such an absurd thing to argue about that I just assumed that some massive brainfart happened there. It happens to everyone, not everyone doubles down on it though.

Oh, they did it much more than twice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873381 But then again, isn't a good portion of this thread non-mathematicians arguing about what math is? I really thought ndriscoll put it succinctly[0] > It's like trying to argue about the distinction between U(1), the complex numbers with magnitude 1, and the unit circle, and getting upset when the mathematicians say "those are 3 names f…

> But then again, isn't a good portion of this thread non-mathematicians arguing about what math is?

No, a good chunk is clarification of "WTF do you mean?"

The abstract arguing I suspect we all find to not be interesting and absurd. Let's go to substance here..

The article has stated there is evidence that the math related regions of the brain are not nearly as heavily used when coding as compared to the language regions. The "mathematicians" seem to be arguing that this can't be true because coding and math are so closely related.

This is why the article and evidence are interesting. Coding and math are clearly and very closely related in many ways. Yet, the way the brain handles and interprets coding is more akin to pure language, than it is to pure math.

Which I suppose makes it all the more interesting that Math, Language, and coding are so related, yet (per the evidence and the article) - the brain does not see it that way.

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

#463

Post by seadan83 »

ndriscoll wrote: post #429
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…

The problem you're running into is that people who have some "mathematical maturity" don't get bogged down in notation, so it's difficult for them to see the distinction you're trying to draw between e.g. `{ x∈S | x.id = 1}` and `select x from S where x.id = 1`[0]. You say "a SQL query is a SQL query" and they just think "yes, which is also obviously a mathematical expression". Computer programs are proofs[1]. This i…

A better analogy is if someone got upset that someone else said "the set of natural numbers is the set of real numbers." One is a subset of course, and when that is highlighted, the response is "yeah, by 'is', I actually mean subset", therefore indeed: the set of natural numbers is the set of real numbers.

This is an interesting example: "Or saying that writing C is programming but writing in a functional language like Scala or Haskell (or Lean) is not."

The first part is everything we need to look at. Are we saying that writing C is equivalent and equal to the entirety of all programming? That if you're programming then you are writing C code. No, there is an implied "is a form of" in there. Given the other clarifications and that so many people are claiming to be mathematicians, I would have expected the precision to say exactly "C is a form of programming" rather than "C is programming."

Turns out, the analogy of saying "the set of reals is the set of naturals" is more fitting compared to sets that are actually equal.

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

#464

Post by seadan83 »

seadan83 wrote: post #461
godelski wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I don't think his point even stands. We were using English to communicate and English doesn't have the strict rules of mathematics. That's literally why we created math (which I'll gladly call "a class of languages"). He's right, "is" maps to "equivalent" but he's also wrong because "is" also maps to "subset" and several other things. "Is" is a surjection. The problem here all comes down to seadan83 acting i…

> We were using English to communicate and English doesn't have the strict rules of mathematics. Agree. > He's right, "is" maps to "equivalent" but he's also wrong because "is" also maps to "subset" and several other things. "Is" is a surjection. I agree. So, why can't either interpretation be valid? Perhaps, because one is obviously not true? Yet, it seemed like there was a clarification that the obviously not true…

Thinking about this a bit more.. I think I can refute your statement that "coding is math" and not "coding uses math".

I'm sorry the conversation got so caught up on pedantics.

Previously I would have quite readily agreed that at least "coding is a subset of math" - now I'd only agree in the sense that coding is an applied math, just like Physics is applied Math.

So, it does seem to be clearly a 'uses' relationship, and I'll support the assertion. To explain, coding is the act of creating a series of boolean expression (governed by boolean algebra) to create a desired output from a given input. To really explain, code is translated to assembly, which is then translated to binary, which then directly maps to how electrical signals flow out of CPU registers into a series of logical circuits. Assuming no faulty circuits, that flow is completely governed by boolean algebra. We therefore use boolean algebra to create our programs, we define a series of boolean operations to achieve a certain goal. We are _using_ boolean algebra to arrange a series of operations that maps a given set of inputs to a desired output. In the colloquial sense, coding is applied math, it is not pure math though. We use boolean algebra to create our programs, the programs are not boolean algebra themselves, but an application of boolean algebra.

Now, tying it all back to the article and implications. The data collected stated that the language parts of the brain are more responsible for whether we are able to learn programming. That seems to imply that the math part of programming is so far abstracted, that the parts of the brain which are used for math are no longer the most salient.

I wonder how the experiments and results in the article would have gone had the topic been electrical circuits and electrical engineering, which is far closer to the underlying math than coding.

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

#465

Post by seba_dos1 »

seadan83 wrote: post #460
seba_dos1 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 an…

I literally copied "Math is a language." from your quote that started this subthread. Nobody here has typed "Math is language" - except you. Just open https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43873113, press CTRL+F and see for yourself. I can't fathom how can you still deny being so obviously wrong.
Post reply on HN