Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Are you sure you aren't mistaken? :-)


Go ahead - show me wrong.


I have already done that, what I am unsure of is how to go about convincing you.

With compilers - I just fix the bug myself. With humans, I have to convince the human to self-correct.

Common problem in distributed systems that - leader election.


It is a general rule that those who avoid answering a question do not have an answer, and this is no exception. Here, You completely misunderstand Chomsky’s hierarchy: By your inverted-hierarchy argument, the simplest regular language would be complex enough that incompleteness would be an issue in its validation.


Well, this looks like abuse of Cunningham's law, but I'll bite.

It is a general rule that general rules have exceptions. And you have (incorrectly) asserted that this is not an exception.

Q.E.D

Even the most powerful languages (Type 0 in the hierarchy) cannot solve the halting problem. Which is equivalent to Godel's incompleteness theorem.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

If a Type 3 grammar can recursively prove its own correctness, it's not a Type 3 grammar!

But if you desperately want to be right, I will happily lie to you (you are right, I am wrong), so I can move on with my life.


Your second paragraph is just a direct begging-of-the-question.

More significantly, verifying that sentences are well-formed in some language is not the same as proving the language’s correctness.

As a response to you argument, consider this regular language:

A


Curry-Howard isomorphism.

Proving that a sentences are “well-formed” is the same as implementing an algorithm which takes a string and returns a Boolean.

You can call this function “is_well_formed?”

I await your proof in the regular language you have specified above.


Please also stop.


Please stop.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: