Re: Languages don't matter. A mathematical refutation

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 15-04-02 15:59 , brbarkstrom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 12:05:37 PM UTC-4, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:47:32 +0200, G.B. wrote:
>>
>>> On 30.03.15 15:48, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:32:08 +0200, G.B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30.03.15 13:52, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>>>> Your book related so-called hidden variable theory. It is considered dead
>>>>>> wrong for about a century.
>>>>>
>>>>> God is dead?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, he keep on playing dice... (:-))
>>>
>>> I wonder if there are any higher order dice?
>>
>> It depends on how much constructive in mathematical sense you want to be.
>> There is no reason to suggest that the diagonal proof would not work for
>> sets of all realizations, but you might be unable to construct such
>> objects.
>>
>>> (Of course, the question needs to be asked in a language
>>> as expressive as Ada 202X!)
>>
>> It would be incomputable anyway. So, God does not speak Ada.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov
>> http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
>
> To change the subject a bit, is there any possibility of using
> the probabilistic approach to estimating the long-term cost of
> maintenance given a history of errors with a particular language?
> I'm thinking here of the statistical record of revisions to TeX
> that Knuth maintained [see Knuth, D. E., 1999: Digital Typography,
> Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University,
> pp. 655-662.]

Something like the Zeigler study at Rational, or has it already been 
discussed in this thread?

http://archive.adaic.com/intro/ada-vs-c/cada_art.html

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .