[ExI] CQT Researcher Uncovers Quantitative Link Between Quantum Non-Locality and Uncertainty.
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 9 14:40:23 UTC 2010
"spike" <spike66 at att.net> frothed:
> Computer science is filled with mathematical
> ugliness. Consider the command
> X = X+1
> To a mathematics fan, it just looks wrong and ugly.
> It is = abuse. It
> implies that 1=0.
> We know it is shorthand, and actually means
> X(t+1) = X(t) + 1
> dammit, = is sacred! When you see = that means the
> stuff on the left of
> that = is the same as the stuff on the right!
In maths, yes.
In programming, no.
OK, some programming languages are worse than others, but in most of the decent ones, = means only one thing, assignment, and == means the stuff on the left is equal to the stuff on the right, but it's still not the same as maths equality, because it can be true or false. In maths, it's only allowed to be true.
I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not maths. It's an instruction, not a description. And you're using an example from a pretty awful language, as well. X++ is a better example. That can't be confused with any mathematical statement (afaik).
I don't understand what X(t+1) = X(t) + 1 is, or what it has to do with the operation of adding one to X. In maths, its a valid statement, in programming, its not.
> = is
> powerful! It forms the
> basis for =ity, which is good. = should always = =
> and only =. Otherwise
> it sounds like ".depends on what your definition of is is."
It depends on the context you are using it in, as does everything else.
You might as well complain that psychologists are misusing the term 'positive' because positive people don't attract negatively-charged objects.
> is is is, and = = =! = is is! Is = =!
but = != !=
More information about the extropy-chat