News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by fnordsensei on Thursday September 12, 2019 @09:42AM (#20951322)
Does elegance describe well-defined observable properties that are independent of the observer?

The point being, that if not, we're still within the domain of the subjective. It seems arbitrary to allow one set of subjective descriptions and disallow another.

Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by mlevental on Thursday September 12, 2019 @09:56AM (#20951464)
elegant: "the quality of being pleasingly ingenious and simple; neatness."

definitely less subjective than beautiful. and it's not arbitrary - i've alluded to an argument that can be made. i'm not going to spell it out because as usual no one on here is receptive anything that doesn't valorize stem.

Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by jjuel on Thursday September 12, 2019 @11:54AM (#20952935)
Beauty: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight."

So I cannot like the shape or form when I look at a proof or function? I cannot have my aesthetic senses pleased by looking at STEM field things?

Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by mlevental on Thursday September 12, 2019 @05:46PM (#20956815)
i'm sorry but what is the shape or form of a proof? a function maybe - and calligraphy is certainly an art but what's wholly different from what the function encodes.
Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by tempWinHater on Friday September 13, 2019 @12:12PM (#20963392)
Proofs have structure, i.e., shape or form.
Re:The beauty of functional languages in deep learning – Clo... by mlevental on Saturday September 14, 2019 @11:46AM (#20971534)
they have a logical structure (claim, lemma, lemma, proof, etc.). they do not have a shape in the sense that the person i responded to intends.