[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Please improve these comprehensions (was meaning of [ ])

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 7:32:52 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> > Pop et al wont work with frozen sets
>> > Containment wont work with sets ? what mathematicians call 'not closed'
>> > All of which amounts to this that python sets are not really pleasant for
>> > math-work
>> Funnily enough, Python has never boasted that it's great for
>> mathematicians.
> True that
>> Time and time again I see posts here that try to
>> explain Python from the POV of pure mathematics, and they always seem
>> to end up getting convoluted and awkward.
> Unrelated that.
> Look at all the fundamental operations here
> https://docs.python.org/3.6/library/operator.html
> What percentage of these are unrelated to math?
> And how do you write even the simplest assignment statement without a
> (mathematical) expression on the rhs?
> And a look at history:
> What *were* Turing, Church, von Neumann, even Knuth by training? Mathematicians or CS-ists?
> And what *are* the contributions of Turing, Church, von Neumann, Knuth to CS?

Yes, mathematicians have contributed significantly to comp sci. And
people in suits have contributed to comp sci, too. Should we all wear
suits just because of the massive contributions from decades ago? Or
should we do what is best for solving our problems today?