News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Parse, Don't Validate (2019). Parent comment

Re:Parse, Don't Validate (2019) by ukj on Saturday June 26, 2021 @06:29AM (#27640741)
The conference is indeed a spoof, but in so far as what Mathematicians call a "proof" - the paper contains one. Agda is a proof assistant in the spirit of the Calculus of Constructions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_constructions ).

So is the joke on Computer Scientists or Mathematicians? You decide ;)

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it --Donald Knuth

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Parse, Don't Validate (2019) by Drup on Saturday June 26, 2021 @08:31AM (#27641293)
Sigbovik's jokes are of the kind where the premise is completely bonkers. The rest of the development is made with the utmost rigor to highlight said bonkersitude, Reductio ad absurdum.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Parse, Don't Validate (2019) by ukj on Saturday June 26, 2021 @08:34AM (#27641314)
Yeah, but that is precisely how inductive types work.

"Bonkers" premises. Iterate, iterate, iterate. "Bonkers" conclusions. GIGO.

And yet the result is reified, exists and speaks for itself. So what is so "absurd" and "bonkers" about a result that is right before your eyes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(computer_science)

[ Parent | on HN ]