TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Holy Trinity: Logic, Languages, Categories (2011)

111 点作者 rpbertp13超过 8 年前

9 条评论

orbifold超过 8 年前
An interesting published review of this relationship is &quot;Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone&quot;, by John C. Baez, Mike Stay <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;0903.0340" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;0903.0340</a>. The first author alos has lots of interesting stuff related to (quantum) computation on his website.
igravious超过 8 年前
This link surfaced on HN before. :)<p>505 days ago to be precise during a discussion of the article “Relation Between Type Theory, Category Theory and Logic” on <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ncatlab.org&#x2F;nlab&#x2F;show&#x2F;relation+between+type+theory+and+category+theory" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;ncatlab.org&#x2F;nlab&#x2F;show&#x2F;relation+between+type+theory+a...</a><p>Fascinating topic, previous discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9867465" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9867465</a>
评论 #13051988 未加载
dvt超过 8 年前
&gt; Imagine a world in which logic, programming, and mathematics are unified, in which every proof corresponds to a program, every program to a mapping, every mapping to a proof!<p>For those of you that may not know, this is called the Curry-Howard(-Lambek) Correspondence[1]. It establishes an isomorphism between well-formed computer programs and formal logic. This isomorphism is fairly intuitive when doing something like (typed) λ-calculus, but it also applies to things like Java and C++.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...</a>
评论 #13054150 未加载
评论 #13051997 未加载
cousin_it超过 8 年前
Unfortunately the most beautiful form of that analogy is the one that&#x27;s crippled on both sides: computation (without Turing completeness) is equivalent to logic (without excluded middle). Add Turing completeness and you lose soundness. Add excluded middle and you lose confluence. Of course you can put epicycles on top of the simple idea and make it do anything you want, but as far as I know, no one has ever used the Curry-Howard toolbox to solve a nontrivial algorithmic problem for the first time. Any exciting paper about algorithms (like quicksort, Dijkstra&#x27;s algorithm, or Primes in P) will usually have a lot of math involving numbers, but no math involving types.
评论 #13058124 未加载
pmoriarty超过 8 年前
<i>&quot;In this sense all three have ontological force; they codify what is, not how to describe what is already given to us.&quot;</i><p>What&#x27;s the difference between &quot;what is&quot; and &quot;what is already given to us&quot;? What&#x27;s the difference between codifying and describing it?
评论 #13052199 未加载
threepipeproblm超过 8 年前
What a coincidence... just ran across this video -- <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=YRu7Xi-mNK8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=YRu7Xi-mNK8</a> -- last night, where Prof. Frank Pfenning makes a similar point in the first few minutes.
adamnemecek超过 8 年前
I think that probability also deserves it&#x27;s place in this tetrad.
评论 #13051795 未加载
zengid超过 8 年前
I feel like this mystical mumbo-jumbo is counterproductive.
评论 #13051660 未加载
xchaotic超过 8 年前
How is this going to make my code better? As far as I remember attempts to use proofs in production were counter productive. For most systems knowing that print &quot;hello&quot;; will do that is good enough.
评论 #13051840 未加载
评论 #13052768 未加载
评论 #13054852 未加载
评论 #13052003 未加载