News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by pmoriarty on Saturday July 02, 2022 @07:03AM (#31957974)
> it has everything to do with AI

Could you elaborate on this? What does it have to do with AI?

Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by reinman on Saturday July 02, 2022 @07:04AM (#31957979)
Do you have any Prolog background? Inference rules? Armstrong's axioms etc.?
Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by ungamedplayer on Saturday July 02, 2022 @07:18AM (#31958064)
For the laymen's in the audience such as myself can you answer the question.
Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by reinman on Saturday July 02, 2022 @07:31AM (#31958139)
(repost from similar question above)

Categories are about composition. Crafting is also about composition - using inference rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_theory

The classic schematic representation of X Y Z shown on the above wiki page is basically a crafting rule to create Z. That is, if the AI knows about a "path" (think back to your homotopy training) from X and Y to Z then it can craft a Z from X,Y if it needs to

Yes this is exactly reverse to how we normally think about the caller/callee relationship

Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by ungamedplayer on Saturday July 02, 2022 @07:47AM (#31958230)
I usually just upvote. But I'd like to take the time to thank you for responding. Have a good one.
Re:Did Functional Programming Get It Wrong (Part 2) – Minecr... by reinman on Saturday July 02, 2022 @08:09AM (#31958358)
HN skepticism is warranted and deserves decent answers