danghica

9 ms·

1.
by danghica 7y ago
So there were three deaths for who knows how many rides. How does this compare with bikes and cars? Surely some people die using those or any other means of transport, including walking.
2.
by danghica 7y ago
Yes, and this means that you do have far bigger problems than keeping track of drug trials.
3.
by danghica 7y ago
Why not a government regulated database?
4.
by danghica 9y ago
Hello all, I am the author of the blog post. Now the tool is available online: https://fyp.jackhughesweb.com/tasks/ Please fill out the feedback form if you have time, so we can improve the project.
5.
So what is a “pure programming language” anyway?(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
5 points by danghica 10y ago|0 comments
6.
Basic introduction to functional programming using OCaml(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
4 points by danghica 11y ago|0 comments
7.
Compilers are lazy denotational interpreters(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
4 points by danghica 11y ago|0 comments
8.
by danghica 11y ago
There is absolutely no irony. Extreme inequality is undesirable on any scale. This is consistency, the opposite of irony.
9.
by danghica 11y ago
You seem to assume that extreme inequality in society is to be fought against only if it leads to an overall degradation of material prosperity. That is nonsense. People always wanted more equality for the same reason they wanted democracy,
10.
by danghica 11y ago
Indeed. Agda and Coq are excellent examples.
11.
A simple proof checker to use in teaching(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
2 points by danghica 11y ago|0 comments
12.
by danghica 11y ago
Yes, of course. But that is not the point at stake here.
13.
by danghica 11y ago
If "everything computes" then you can not use "because it computes" as an explanation.
14.
by danghica 11y ago
Yes, but they merely spell out Chalmers's implementation relation without even acknowledging it properly: "The question of when a physical system is computing is fundamentally a question about the relationship of abstract mathemat
15.
by danghica 11y ago
I suppose you refer to section 6 in his paper which attacks a particular critique of computationalism. I think the particular point he is making is valid. However, the argument this blog post is making is a different one.
16.
by danghica 11y ago
Pied Piper?
17.
Algebraic knot theory for kids: equations(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
42 points by danghica 11y ago|3 comments
18.
by danghica 11y ago
You would still need to program in Agda though :) Cheers!
19.
by danghica 11y ago
Indeed, I was going to talk about session types in a follow-on post :) Well anticipated! Cheers!
20.
by danghica 11y ago
I agree with monads, not so sure about algebraic effects. Having to define the effect feels like "simulation" to me. It's OK for a meta-language, but to me it feels wrong for actual effectful programming.
21.
by danghica 11y ago
I am aware of this -- I teach Agda :) But I think Agda is not quite as accessible as Python, that's what I meant. Cheers!
22.
The limits of type theory: computation vs. interaction(researchblogs.cs.bham.ac.uk)
81 points by danghica 11y ago|66 comments
23.
by danghica 11y ago
In fact, by considering diagrams left as exercise you will learn even more! :)
24.
by danghica 11y ago
Site promptly collapsed. I'll need to have a word with admins. Meanwhile, here's a link to a text-only cached version: http://bit.ly/1dbgW1J
25.
by danghica 11y ago
Yes!
26.
by danghica 11y ago
Yes, of course. Exercise!
27.
by danghica 11y ago
Good questions! But remember this is a theory that I am developing along as we go with a bunch of kids. We may end up with a lot of open problems. For (1) I think the answer is 'yes' because the knots are finite structures. For (2
28.
by danghica 11y ago
Fixed, thanks!