Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions

→‎The Go proof?: compilers are programs too
(→‎The Go proof?: more explanation)
(→‎The Go proof?: compilers are programs too)
Line 49:
 
:: I'm sure it was a fun thing to write, but "not much of a proof" is the problem here. I can write any kind of code to prove odd + odd = odd, and I can make it compile, but that proves nothing; only when I run the code, and do a test like "is 1 + 3 odd?" The code will go 1 + 3 = 4-> pred 2 ->pred 0 (BOOM, hopefully, because first element is 1), so that's a counterproof, <i>but</i>, the key is, you <i>have to run your logic in the code to make a proof</i>, merely compiling means nothing. If you aggree to that, now convince me your code can prove even + even = even: I won't likely live long enough to see your program exhastively test all even numbers. See my point? However fun it was with the axioms and writing the code, I just don't think this code counts as fullfilling the task. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 
: The task might be poorly worded and poorly named, but I think the examples posted by the task author and every example except Haskell show the same thing, which is using the language type system enforcement of closure over a type as an analog of mathematical closure over a set of numbers. The code to demonstrate isn't the code that you write, but the code that is in the language translator. &mdash;[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 01:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
1,707

edits