253

I give back what I recieve just as the law requires (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/196

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] kogasa@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

So now you do consider working in CoC to be a reasonable way to do maths. Thus, we have a contradiction. Thus, you make no sense. QED.

I never said otherwise you literal lunatic. I said it would be completely unreasonable to "just rewrite the whole thing in ~~rust~~ CoC." The vast majority of all math has literally nothing to do with nitpicky foundations issues.

You said “in binary”. Peolpe haven’t done that since the days of hand-punching things into cardstock. Which is, precisely, working in binary. Don’t ask me whether a hole is a 0 or 1 I’m not from that era.

I can't have this conversation with someone who can't read.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The vast majority of all math has literally nothing to do with nitpicky foundations issues.

The whole of maths is built on it. The validity of everything hinges on the foundations. I'd even say that the beauty of everything depends on it but formalists are so caught up in their world that they don't even bother to look at constructive maths. The vast majority of maths already has been rewritten in constructive terms. It enabled proofs that were previously impossible.

Now your area of maths might be so arcane and special and everything that nothing whatsoever from the constructive side could ever amount anything but, frankly speaking, I fucking doubt it because you seem to be largely ignorant about the whole topic. For one, doing constructive maths doesn't mean a pre-occupation with "nitpicky foundation issues". Those foundations have been laid ages ago, it's been high-falutin from then on.

Have you watched that video I linked?