foobar_

Clearly you are too much of a pedant to do anything useful in life, so why don't you build a time machine and interrupt your birthing process ? It should be easy ... you can build it using calculus.

Science is about modelling the real world. Mathematics is about modelling. Programming is "interactive" modelling. Its all about modelling accurately.

Clearly you are also too much of a bigot to understand that models are just models and unreadable and undecipherable models are useless and full of shit, especially those built by schizophrenics or priests.

> If you say no, then I challenge you to construct a useful and consistent version of calculus without formal mathematics.

That was how it was constructed in the first place genius. Both calculus and fourier were built for practical purposes before formalist clowns were even alive probably. So why don't you go read the originals.

Formal calculus is beyond useless, its unreadable.

> Do the mental problems and drug addiction of a brilliant musician detract from his or her music? Do you yell "madman" at a painting by van Gogh?

Yes. Completely ignore the degenerates. There are many sober people who have made art and science. You should not allow mentally ill lunatics to define art, music, religion, maths or politics anymore than you will allow them to be your cab driver or spouse.

Clearly science is about sobriety and not schizophrenia. I guess mathematics was hijacked by schizophrenics, music and art by depressed losers. No wonder you are out of touch with reality, practicality and are defending symbols which you think have magical "powers" beyond mere convention.

You can also see this in physics with the string theory garbage, however unlike "pure" mathematics ... in physics people need to test experimentally.

> Yes, and in a sub-thread of the post you've made it clear that you doubt the usefulness of mathematics.

No, I said proofs were tautological and pointless and notation is useless. Formal mathematics is bullshit.

> On several occasions have I and others invited you to comment on very concrete mathematical constructions.

Your sock puppets ?

1. You were asking about fundamental theorem of calculus

This has a very geometric proof. Why would I have a problem with that ? I am all for geometry, visualization, simulation , testing ....

2. A number puzzle

I don't care for number puzzles. I will try to solve that number puzzle if you can write vietnamese jokes.

Mathematicians who think infinity is real should be treated with the same disdain as Neptune worshiping astrologers.

The internet makes it easy for pedantic losers to have a loud opinion. Hell I have even run in to pedantic losers who have the time to create multiple new and fake accounts and use old sock puppets to create the illusion of an audience because these friendless, loveless losers literally have no one to talk to IRL.

> I keep running into people like this all the time.

Psychological attacks, amazing! I'm guessing you are one of those deeply insecure symbol twiddlers. Let me guess, as kid you were crap at everything, especially sports except symbol twiddling so you latched onto those praises your teacher gave you and as an adult that is the only source of your self-esteem. And you can't handle it when someone on the internet thinks abstract mathematicians are full of shit.

I'm not insane ... you are just the type of person who will defend roman numerals. Maybe you just have OCD.

1. Socrates is mortal

2. Mortals die

3. Socrates dies

Deduction is really like amazing. Holy shit we really proved something spectacular here. I guess you would be really impressed if I used tau and sigma and defined death with vietnamese alphabet.

Almost the entirety of calculus was derived from problems related to physics. Volumes were calculated for doing engineering. Mathematics != Thinking. The last time I checked both logic and critical thinking were branches of philosophy.

All good mathematicians are physicists or engineers. Heck some even learnt maths on their own. All mediocre mathematicians write textbooks and hide behind notations. Come to think of it they remind me of OO programmers in their utter arrogant mediocrity. Most abstract mathematics is like the definition of protocols/interfaces and other platonic garbage. I suppose this debate will never end. Plato vs Aristotle, Deduction vs Induction, Analytic vs Synthetic ....

1 + 1 = 10

I'm guessing there was a physical intuition behind the theorem, if you can simulate it you will probably do something better than the proof. Now it's your turn to tell me why 1 + 1 = 2.

What I am trying to convey is writing software is better than writing maths, just like medieval music notation vs modern notation. Programming is better than proving because most proofs are mere tautologies or artificial constraints. This is why theorem provers in code rely on term rewriting.

A triangle has a sum of 180 ? Well how about if you push the triangle inside out. In code you can easily run a more complex simulation which gives you all possible values of the sum ... which is why ascertaining useful facts like 180 ad-nausea is boring at best. In fact most mathematics if it can't be simulated can't exist.

No one uses mathematical notation for practical purposes. This is just like the medival music notation which is neither practical nor what modern composers use, which is more visual in nature. Infact modernism is a rejection of medievalism.

I think in the future programming will force all mathematicians to code or give out simulations. Most mathematical notation was intended to be throwaway by the original authors, thats why there are so many notations. Trying to find relevance in them is a pointless exercise. Much like 80x20, tabs vs spaces ... most of the original intent is lost and what survives is guff meant for ceremonious purposes.

`UNWIND-PROTECT` thats cool!

What I meant with the promises was, If you could pass three closures ... like success, error, restart could you get some kinda condition system ?

Congrats on the book!

If you are just going to use `TAGBODY` and `GO` to implement this ... in a goto based languages like C I don't think you would be needing a condition system. In C a nested function can also jump into a parents goto label. No one probably uses it, but just saying!

Also how similar is this to promises in javascript ?