Computers are usable through canonical isomorphisms to other systems?
-
-
Replying to @ctbeiser @Meaningness
the isomorphisms are, of course, socially determined, and those determinations get embedded in the logic of the program
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ctbeiser
Yes; and that’s most of the job, I think. But we don’t have any detailed account of how this works, afaik
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
Of how which part works? The embedding itself seems pretty straightforwards.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ctbeiser
Well, ideally, we’d want to just say what the other system is, and have that be executable! And I think this may be feasible.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
is this different than what we do now / somehow immune to the problems inherent in schematizing?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ctbeiser
Your second point is a very good one… although perhaps making the schema explicit makes it easier to locate representation vs reality bugs
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ctbeiser
Re first, “executable specifications” has been a holy grail for decades, but I think is more nearly feasible than generally supposed
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @ctbeiser
This has been on my “ought to think about harder someday” list since about 1990 so I’m probably out to lunch; but it doesn’t seem that hard
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
You can make the mapping explicit, but your bugs may still be in the schematized version of what you're mapping from…
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.