I am a mechanical engineering major. Why do I feel like I need to use
MATLAB?
My idea of a dream system to do computer-aided engineering would consist of
the stuff like:
-Greek Keyboard. (actually, why use a keyboard?)
-Units. Built deep into the numerical processing of the language and the
chip. Add 1m and 1kg and trap!
-Matrices. Damn near everything in CAD can be put into a matrix and juggled
around. (P.S. I hate floating point.)
I am wondering a couple of things. PI = 2r = d.
d is one dimensional and [arbitrarily] rational ==> 1 for instance. It is
the maximum chordal length between one end of a circle and the other end of
a circle. (I am under the impression for some reason that Bill Gosper came
up with a continued fraction representation of PI, but doesn't that use
infinity (I guess infinity is rational!! 1/0 haha.))
However if 2PIr=circumference and 2r = d then PI= circumference/d.
Everybody knows that. But PI is irrational, and a circle is just about the
simplest thing that you can use to create a two dimensional object.
So what does that say about the relationship in this universe between the
first physical dimension and the second? Is it the difference between
rational and irrational? Can one express *any* irrational number in terms
of PI? That is the question, because if so I want a computer that
understands this stuff.
One could parameterize various polygons topology and geometry by putting
points on the circumference of a circle in terms of theta then applying
scaling, rotating and displacing matrices to those circles to come up with
orientable convexly shaped polygons.
I suppose one could get past the convex limitation by parameterizing in
terms of theta, and r or even and phi.
The point I am trying to make is that I have for years wanted a solid
modeler in Lips that takes advantage of Lips' unique number system to come
up with a rational, reversible modeler which never has a problem with
"stitching" as my professor has pointed out.
But why am I wasting my freaking time hunting down fast algorithms to do
Matrices. Matrices are the eloquent way of solving problems like splines,
and I have found out from Matt D. and Richard Fateman that either you have
more declarations than code or you do everything with lists. Either way I
can't read my own code to know what is going on!!!
That is neither the heart of Lisp nor KBE. Your code should be almost self
explanatory and only require comments to explain the logic behind the
*concept* of the problem you are trying to solve and not comments describing
optimization tricks.
People need to be able to *see* the knowledge, so when you get hit by a bus,
they don't have to rewrite it from scratch. The should be able to turn to a
zmacs buffer and not a pdf document for knowledge.
Maxima I cannot find an easy way to integrate infix notation into a Lisp KBE
framework because it's all stinking reader stuff. Maxima scares me, how one
would track down a bug is beyond me. (or even discover it)
Basically I am bitching,
Lisp to me seems like a failure to ordinary engineers because lisp is
missing so much that MATLAB and Autodesk Inventor have. (but have not
necessarily done right)
I know that this is because Lisp is a small community dedicated to doing it
right, and therefore progress is slow, but come on!
How do we solve this problem with COM, without FFI, without "declare",
without matrix-inversef matrix-inversed and matrix-inversei.
I am only an engineering student. The CS community is creating "artificial
land" to solve "artificial problems" and forgetting that the seat they are
in is being propped up 35,000ft by a boeing 777.
-there are tons of people writing nice systems which would be a good place
to start for a solid modeler
--cells, screamer, gdl, etc.
-there are tons of people interfacing to other domains
--ffi, cl-pdf, COM
-there are tons of people making fast compilers for pentiums
-but I am supposed to be helping with problems like "where are we going to
get the energy to heat our hot water in the 22nd century?"
-how do we manage our automobile traffic systems?
-how do we keep planes trains and automobiles from crashing and buildings
from falling and bridges from crumbling?
-where are we going to put our sewage?
I can't help anyone solve these problems if I have to write matrix-inverse
first. Why the eff were units not included in common lisp to begin with?
WHY AM I USING AN INTEL PROCESSOR? An intel processor is designed to do
backflips in order to run old code. (the intel processor exists because
hardware has become soft and software has become hard.)
The state of the CS community is just pathetic.
GET ORGANIZED! or write video games.
grumble grumble grumble,
I hate c.l.l. and I am actually going to click send.
AKW
"Spiros Bousbouras" <······@gmail.com> wrote in message
····························@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Andrew Wolven wrote:
>
> < Incoherent drivel snipped >
>
> So what were you on when you typed this ?
>
Let's see. (Counting fingers and thumbs...)
This one, this one, that one, this other one, oh crap *I forgot the blue
pill* !
An insult back to you as well.
I don't know why I'm replying to these insane ramblings, but...
Andrew Wolven wrote:
> Can one express *any* irrational number in terms
> of PI?
No. The transcendence basis for the reals over the rationals is
uncountably infinite. Even if you pick an infinite set of irrational
numbers a_1, a_2, a_3, ... indexed by the integers, that would not be
enough.
Slava
·····@jedit.org wrote:
> I don't know why I'm replying to these insane ramblings, but...
>
> Andrew Wolven wrote:
> > Can one express *any* irrational number in terms
> > of PI?
>
> No. The transcendence basis for the reals over the rationals is
> uncountably infinite. Even if you pick an infinite set of irrational
> numbers a_1, a_2, a_3, ... indexed by the integers, that would not be
> enough.
>
> Slava
I see. (I C)
irrational numbers take up a lot of storage. (if we had such a
datatype)
thank you,
AKW
wow. have we proven the existance of irrational numbers though? what
if for some way shape or form one could measure the circumference the
circle and the diameter and their turned out to be some, possibly very
complicated, but "rational" relationship. "rational" meaning
systematic as much as one integer over another.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:33:39 -0700, awolven wrote:
>
> wow. have we proven the existance of irrational numbers though?
Take another hit off that bong, dude.
--
My address happens to be com (dot) gmail (at) usenet (plus) chbarts,
wardsback and translated.
It's in my header if you need a spoiler.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
On 30 Sep 2006 17:33:39 -0700, ·······@gmail.com tried to confuse
everyone with this message:
>
>·····@jedit.org wrote:
>> I don't know why I'm replying to these insane ramblings, but...
>>
>> Andrew Wolven wrote:
>> > Can one express *any* irrational number in terms
>> > of PI?
>>
>> No. The transcendence basis for the reals over the rationals is
>> uncountably infinite. Even if you pick an infinite set of irrational
>> numbers a_1, a_2, a_3, ... indexed by the integers, that would not be
>> enough.
>>
>> Slava
>
>I see. (I C)
>irrational numbers take up a lot of storage. (if we had such a
>datatype)
>thank you,
>
Many irrational and even transcendental numbers can be in fact
represented in computer in a finite way. For example this Lisp library:
http://www.haible.de/bruno/MichaelStoll/reals.html
can operate with any computable numbers.
--
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il |
|But we can take them on! | @ma |
| (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________|
·······@gmail.com wrote:
> ·····@jedit.org wrote:
> > I don't know why I'm replying to these insane ramblings, but...
> >
> > Andrew Wolven wrote:
> > > Can one express *any* irrational number in terms
> > > of PI?
> >
> > No. The transcendence basis for the reals over the rationals is
> > uncountably infinite. Even if you pick an infinite set of irrational
> > numbers a_1, a_2, a_3, ... indexed by the integers, that would not be
> > enough.
> >
> > Slava
>
> I see. (I C)
> irrational numbers take up a lot of storage. (if we had such a
> datatype)
Irrational numbers are essentially algorithms. If you have made an
algorithm that you can prove progressively approaches a limit then that
algorithm represents an real number. If that real number is not also a
rational, that is to say it's irrational, then the smallest way to
represent that irrational is the shortest algorithm that approaches it.
> thank you,
>
> AKW
>
> wow. have we proven the existance of irrational numbers though? what
> if for some way shape or form one could measure the circumference the
> circle and the diameter and their turned out to be some, possibly very
> complicated, but "rational" relationship. "rational" meaning
> systematic as much as one integer over another.
There is no way, this was proven in ancient times. See the bottom of
the page:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number
"Rob Thorpe" <·············@antenova.com> writes:
> Irrational numbers are essentially algorithms. If you have made an
> algorithm that you can prove progressively approaches a limit then that
> algorithm represents an real number. If that real number is not also a
> rational, that is to say it's irrational, then the smallest way to
> represent that irrational is the shortest algorithm that approaches it.
Basically, I guess you end up with a basis (albeit infinite) of
irrational numbers that can be added (subtracted), multiplied (divided),
and exponentiated (dividing the exponent into 1 already covers taking
roots, so there!) with each other and all rationals to give every other
real number. Has anyone studied this set and its properties?
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
In article <··············@nyct.net>, Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net>
wrote:
> Basically, I guess you end up with a basis (albeit infinite) of
> irrational numbers that can be added (subtracted), multiplied (divided),
> and exponentiated (dividing the exponent into 1 already covers taking
> roots, so there!) with each other and all rationals to give every other
> real number. Has anyone studied this set and its properties?
Interesting thought, but I think you underestimate the size of the set
of irrational numbers.
Most of the time when we say a set is "infinite", we mean "countably
infinite", which states that there can be a 1-1 correspondence between
that set and the set of natural numbers. Integers, rationals, pairs of
rationals, and even sequences of rationals fall into this category. The
bottom line is that if there is a way to enumerate the items, then you
can count them, hence they are either finite or countably infinite.
However, the set of irrational numbers cannot be put in a 1-1
correspondence with the natural numbers. In this sense, the set of
irrationals is "larger" than the set of integers or rationals. This
also means that there is no way to enumerate all of the irrational
numbers.
Getting back to the suggestion of a basis, I believe it would need to
have an uncountably infinite number of elements, and perhaps not be as
useful as you were thinking. If you were envisioning something that a
computer, given unlimited time and space, could use to just start
cranking out one irrational after another, then it cannot cover the
entire set of irrationals.
Dave
Dave Baum wrote:
>
> However, the set of irrational numbers cannot be put in a 1-1
> correspondence with the natural numbers. In this sense, the set of
> irrationals is "larger" than the set of integers or rationals. This
> also means that there is no way to enumerate all of the irrational
> numbers.
Couldn't you just put them in a set and use the axiom of choice to pick
them out one at a time?
> Getting back to the suggestion of a basis, I believe it would need to
> have an uncountably infinite number of elements, and perhaps not be as
> useful as you were thinking. If you were envisioning something that a
> computer, given unlimited time and space, could use to just start
> cranking out one irrational after another, then it cannot cover the
> entire set of irrationals.
It could only give you the computable irrationals, which is a *much*
smaller set.
Joe Marshall wrote:
> Dave Baum wrote:
> >
> > However, the set of irrational numbers cannot be put in a 1-1
> > correspondence with the natural numbers. In this sense, the set of
> > irrationals is "larger" than the set of integers or rationals. This
> > also means that there is no way to enumerate all of the irrational
> > numbers.
>
> Couldn't you just put them in a set and use the axiom of choice to pick
> them out one at a time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
> > Getting back to the suggestion of a basis, I believe it would need to
> > have an uncountably infinite number of elements, and perhaps not be as
> > useful as you were thinking. If you were envisioning something that a
> > computer, given unlimited time and space, could use to just start
> > cranking out one irrational after another, then it cannot cover the
> > entire set of irrationals.
>
> It could only give you the computable irrationals, which is a *much*
> smaller set.
Yes. When speaking about irrationals you can of-course only make the
the algorithms not the numbers themselves, you have to look at the
problem as one of generating algorithms. You could make all algebraic
irrational numbers (that is rationals that are roots of some polynomial
equation), those are a countable set. But this doesn't deal with
trancendental numbers.
Dave Baum <·········@motorola.com> writes:
> Interesting thought, but I think you underestimate the size of the set
> of irrational numbers.
[snip]
Oh no, I know how big it is. But maybe there is a way of taking all
possible infinite sequences of digits (pick your favorite base) and
trying to analyze what these kinds of arithmetic combinations would
cull.
I'm not asking for a list of course. Between every pair of irrational I
know there are an infinite number of other irrationals. Just some idea
of the characteristics of it. Maybe something along the lines of the
density of these basis numbers along the number line. (Something similar
to that... um... pi function (?) for the density of primes.)
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain wrote:
> I'm not asking for a list of course. Between every pair of irrational I
> know there are an infinite number of other irrationals.
But this is also true for the rationals, and we can list those.
John.
--
Contractor in Cambridge UK -- http://www.aspden.com
Dave Baum wrote:
> Most of the time when we say a set is "infinite", we mean "countably
> infinite", which states that there can be a 1-1 correspondence between
> that set and the set of natural numbers. Integers, rationals, pairs of
> rationals, and even sequences of rationals fall into this category.
The set of **finite** sequences of rationals is countable. But if
you're thinking infinite sequences then there are continuum many
of them.
On Pungenday, Bureaucracy 59, 3172 YOLD, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> Most of the time when we say a set is "infinite", we mean "countably
>> infinite", which states that there can be a 1-1 correspondence between
>> that set and the set of natural numbers. Integers, rationals, pairs of
>> rationals, and even sequences of rationals fall into this category.
>
> The set of **finite** sequences of rationals is countable. But if
> you're thinking infinite sequences then there are continuum many
> of them.
Rationals are countable (|Q|=aleph null). Set of indices of infinite
sequence is also aleph null-sized (indices are natural numbers). So,
infinite sequence of rationals *is* aleph null-sized (aleph null times
aleph null is aleph null).
--
__ Maciek Pasternacki <·······@japhy.fnord.org> [ http://japhy.fnord.org/ ]
`| _ |_\ / { 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944
,|{-}|}| }\/ 59230781640628620899862803482534211706798214808651328230664709384
\/ |____/ 46095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211... ( Pi ) -><-
Maciek Pasternacki wrote:
> On Pungenday, Bureaucracy 59, 3172 YOLD, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>
> >> Most of the time when we say a set is "infinite", we mean "countably
> >> infinite", which states that there can be a 1-1 correspondence between
> >> that set and the set of natural numbers. Integers, rationals, pairs of
> >> rationals, and even sequences of rationals fall into this category.
> >
> > The set of **finite** sequences of rationals is countable. But if
> > you're thinking infinite sequences then there are continuum many
> > of them.
>
> Rationals are countable (|Q|=aleph null). Set of indices of infinite
> sequence is also aleph null-sized (indices are natural numbers). So,
> infinite sequence of rationals *is* aleph null-sized
Your premises are correct but the conclusion doesn't follow.
Consider that for every real number there is a sequence of
rationals converging to that number. If the set of all infinite
sequences of rationals were countable as you're claiming then
the set of converging sequences in particular would be countable
hence the set of reals would be countable. Since this isn't the case
the set of all infinite sequences of rationals is not countable.
> (aleph null times
> aleph null is aleph null).
Indeed but the set of all sequences is given by aleph-null
raised to the power aleph-null and that's the continuum.
On Sweetmorn, Bureaucracy 62, 3172 YOLD, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> >> Most of the time when we say a set is "infinite", we mean "countably
>> >> infinite", which states that there can be a 1-1 correspondence between
>> >> that set and the set of natural numbers. Integers, rationals, pairs of
>> >> rationals, and even sequences of rationals fall into this category.
>> >
>> > The set of **finite** sequences of rationals is countable. But if
>> > you're thinking infinite sequences then there are continuum many
>> > of them.
>>
>> Rationals are countable (|Q|=aleph null). Set of indices of infinite
>> sequence is also aleph null-sized (indices are natural numbers). So,
>> infinite sequence of rationals *is* aleph null-sized
>
> Your premises are correct but the conclusion doesn't follow.
> Consider that for every real number there is a sequence of
> rationals converging to that number. If the set of all infinite
> sequences of rationals were countable as you're claiming then
> the set of converging sequences in particular would be countable
> hence the set of reals would be countable. Since this isn't the case
> the set of all infinite sequences of rationals is not countable.
>
>> (aleph null times
>> aleph null is aleph null).
>
> Indeed but the set of all sequences is given by aleph-null
> raised to the power aleph-null and that's the continuum.
I see now, thanks for clearing this up.
--
__ Maciek Pasternacki <·······@japhy.fnord.org> [ http://japhy.fnord.org/ ]
`| _ |_\ / { ...so I talked about conscience, and I talked about pain,
,|{-}|}| }\/ and he looked out of window, and it started to rain, and
\/ |____/ I thought, maybe - I've already gone crazy... } ( Fish ) -><-
Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Irrational numbers are essentially algorithms.
No , irrational numbers are not "essentially algorithms". This
perhaps can be said about *computable* irrationals (depending
on what you mean by "essentially algorithms") but not all of them.
There are only countably many computable irrationals since there
are countably many algorithms and continuum many non computable
irrationals. These are also the limit of a sequence of rationals but
there's no algorithm which will produce the sequence.
> If you have made an
> algorithm that you can prove progressively approaches a limit then that
> algorithm represents an real number.
I assume you mean here an algorithm which produces a sequence of
rationals which progressively approach a limit.
> If that real number is not also a
> rational, that is to say it's irrational, then the smallest way to
> represent that irrational is the shortest algorithm that approaches it.
I kind of see what you're saying here but it is very far from
accurate. It all hinges on what exactly is meant by "represent".
For example there is a single Greek letter which represents pi.
You can "represent" the square root of 2 by using the appropriate
symbol. So you don't need sequences of rationals to represent
irrationals.
Another thing to consider is this: if you have a short algorithm
which produces a sequence of rationals which converge to some
irrational x and a longer algorithm which produces a sequence
of rationals which also converge to x much faster than the other
one then which one is the shorter representation ? Short algorithm
slow convergence or long algorithm fast convergence ?
"Spiros Bousbouras" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Another thing to consider is this: if you have a short algorithm
> which produces a sequence of rationals which converge to some
> irrational x and a longer algorithm which produces a sequence
> of rationals which also converge to x much faster than the other
> one then which one is the shorter representation ? Short algorithm
> slow convergence or long algorithm fast convergence ?
The shorter algorithm, by definition. Of course, if you were interested
in actually doing numerical approximations, you'd want the faster
convergence, whatever the "size of the representation".
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain wrote:
> "Spiros Bousbouras" <······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Another thing to consider is this: if you have a short algorithm
> > which produces a sequence of rationals which converge to some
> > irrational x and a longer algorithm which produces a sequence
> > of rationals which also converge to x much faster than the other
> > one then which one is the shorter representation ? Short algorithm
> > slow convergence or long algorithm fast convergence ?
>
> The shorter algorithm, by definition. Of course, if you were interested
> in actually doing numerical approximations, you'd want the faster
> convergence, whatever the "size of the representation".
But I don't think that Rob Thorpe was referring to a definition
or giving a definition. He was rather presenting an intuition about
what should count as the shortest representation. So I was
merely saying that intuitively I can't decide on what should
count as the shortest between the 2 possibilities I mentioned.
"Spiros Bousbouras" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> But I don't think that Rob Thorpe was referring to a definition
> or giving a definition.
Sure he was. :) (see below)
> He was rather presenting an intuition about what should count as the
> shortest representation.
The definition he was referring to was the definiton for
"representation". :)
You're representing the number using an algorithm, so the shorter
algorithm is the shorter representation. But as I agreed, other metrics
are valuable depending on what you're actually trying to achieve in your
application, which I believe is what you were trying to say, but which
Rob never disagreed with (yet) that I can see.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Whoops, forgot about this.
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote:
>
> > Irrational numbers are essentially algorithms.
>
> No , irrational numbers are not "essentially algorithms". This
> perhaps can be said about *computable* irrationals (depending
> on what you mean by "essentially algorithms") but not all of them.
> There are only countably many computable irrationals since there
> are countably many algorithms and continuum many non computable
> irrationals. These are also the limit of a sequence of rationals but
> there's no algorithm which will produce the sequence.
Yes. I considered mentioning that, but I was feeling lazy. Thanks for
mentioning it.
Most irrational numbers are not computable, but these non-computable
ones aren't that practically useful.
> > If you have made an
> > algorithm that you can prove progressively approaches a limit then that
> > algorithm represents an real number.
>
> I assume you mean here an algorithm which produces a sequence of
> rationals which progressively approach a limit.
Yes.
> > If that real number is not also a
> > rational, that is to say it's irrational, then the smallest way to
> > represent that irrational is the shortest algorithm that approaches it.
>
> I kind of see what you're saying here but it is very far from
> accurate. It all hinges on what exactly is meant by "represent".
> For example there is a single Greek letter which represents pi.
> You can "represent" the square root of 2 by using the appropriate
> symbol. So you don't need sequences of rationals to represent
> irrationals.
Sure. But if you're talking about generating some set of things it's
wise to constrict the domain of what you consider valid output, things
become confusing otherwise. Specifically it's worth removing the
cultural alphabet of mathematics, things like pi and e.
Besides, only a small number of rational numbers could be minimized in
this way (well, small but probably infinite).
> Another thing to consider is this: if you have a short algorithm
> which produces a sequence of rationals which converge to some
> irrational x and a longer algorithm which produces a sequence
> of rationals which also converge to x much faster than the other
> one then which one is the shorter representation ? Short algorithm
> slow convergence or long algorithm fast convergence ?
As Rahul mentions I'm talking about the length of the algorithm itself,
not it's efficiency. The shortest algorithm is the shortest algorithm
that can be proven to converge to the right answer, regardless of how
efficiently it converges.
Andrew Wolven wrote:
> I am a mechanical engineering major. Why do I feel like I need to use
> MATLAB?
>
I dunno. Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
(Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. Fortran 90->95->2003 has become
miles away from many non-fortranners idea of fortran, just as common
lisp is miles away from many non-lispers ancient mental picture
of lisp).
David Golden wrote:
> Andrew Wolven wrote:
>
> > I am a mechanical engineering major. Why do I feel like I need to use
> > MATLAB?
> >
> I dunno. Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
>
Either I'm not Real or you are an idiot.
> (Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. Fortran 90->95->2003 has become
> miles away from many non-fortranners idea of fortran, just as common
> lisp is miles away from many non-lispers ancient mental picture
> of lisp).
So are you going to rewrite for me DOE-2 in FORTRAN 2003 so that the
engineers can read the knowledge base? Has to be as easy as Excel to
program for them. Heck, why not integrated with Excel? A KBE program
like GDL or Icad can be connected to excel, but you still have to write
the DOE stuff. MATLAB, I have seen in docs say they do OLE servers.
But why do I have to connect all of this external stuff? It's just
more work. Oh wait!!! I really like FORTRAN!!! Why didn't I think of
that first.
·······@gmail.com wrote:
>> I dunno. Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
> Either I'm not Real or you are an idiot.
Gee, you're not real, I guess. But the "Real Mechanical Engineers...
and like it" construct was fairly obviously tongue-in-cheek, I thought,
based on the common (admittedly only in the english-speaking-world as
far as I know) construct "Real Men do blah... and like it". Touchy,
aren't you?
> Has to be as easy as Excel to program for them.
FWIW, I don't know what sort of "engineers" you're working with, but,
er, that doesn't exactly scream "competent" to me... Are you in the
USA by any chance? Any idiot can call themselves "engineer" there and
get away with it...
On 9614 day of my life ·······@gmail.com wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>> Andrew Wolven wrote:
>> Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
>>
> Either I'm not Real or you are an idiot.
You are clearly not Real. You are either Rational or Integer.
--
Ivan Boldyrev
Violets are red, Roses are blue. //
I'm schizophrenic, And so am I.
Ivan Boldyrev wrote:
> On 9614 day of my life ·······@gmail.com wrote:
> > David Golden wrote:
> >> Andrew Wolven wrote:
> >> Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
> >>
> > Either I'm not Real or you are an idiot.
>
> You are clearly not Real. You are either Rational or Integer.
>
Hah, I think that's the only post that gives this nut-job the credit
that he deserves.
You know, I read the rantings of the cranks in sci.physics (who don't
like Einstein, for some reason), and in sci.math (who don't like Cantor
for some reason), but I never thought Lisp would acquire its very own
crank.
I'm waiting with bated breath for him to tell us which monumental
figures of computer science was mistaken (McCarthy perhaps?).
Unknownmat wrote:
>
> You know, I read the rantings of the cranks in sci.physics (who don't
> like Einstein, for some reason), and in sci.math (who don't like Cantor
> for some reason), but I never thought Lisp would acquire its very own
> crank.
A crank? In comp.lang.lisp?!! Perish the thought!
Ivan Boldyrev <···············@cgitftp.uiggm.nsc.ru> writes:
> On 9614 day of my life ·······@gmail.com wrote:
>> David Golden wrote:
>>> Andrew Wolven wrote:
>>> Real Mechanical Engineers use Fortran and like it.
>>>
>> Either I'm not Real or you are an idiot.
>
> You are clearly not Real. You are either Rational or Integer.
No, no. Rationals and integers are both in the reals. He's complex.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:40:37 +0200, Andrew Wolven <·······@nospam.net>
wrote:
> But why am I wasting my freaking time hunting down fast algorithms to do
> Matrices. Matrices are the eloquent way of solving problems like
> splines,
> and I have found out from Matt D. and Richard Fateman that either you
> have
> more declarations than code or you do everything with lists. Either way
> I
> can't read my own code to know what is going on!!!
> That is neither the heart of Lisp nor KBE. Your code should be almost
> self
> explanatory and only require comments to explain the logic behind the
> *concept* of the problem you are trying to solve and not comments
> describing
> optimization tricks.
Well there is maxima...
Maxima is a system for the manipulation of symbolic and numerical
expressions, including differentiation, integration, Taylor series,
Laplace transforms, ordinary differential equations, systems of linear
equations, polynomials, and sets, lists, vectors, matrices, and tensors.
Maxima yields high precision numeric results by using exact fractions,
arbitrary precision integers, and arbitrarily precision floating point
numbers. Maxima can plot functions and data in two and three dimensions.
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
Dosn't that contain what you are looking for?
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
I don't like getting mad.
Maxima and Macsyma of which I both have and use have composed their entire
user interface using basically a custom reader as far as I can tell. To
integrate that with a common lisp knowledge based engineering system would
be just slightly harder than heaving an ornery gorilla over a ten foot wall
by myself. You know I suppose I could write the KBE system *in* macsyma,
but then it wouldn't be lisp, would it. Not only would I be stuck with
Maxima's immense inertia, but integrating everything from a webserver to
animation facilities would be a complete bitch.
I am not saying that maxima should not be a source of knowledge, it would be
idiotic to dump it, but if someone were to at least put a 1 character reader
macro of the type like (, {, [, or | which you could nest lisp code into,
and share variables between lisp and maxima, then I would use it more.
Maxima, despite being written in lisp, is not compatible with lisp. Mixing
lisp code and maxima code on the same page would be worse than writing in C.
as it currently is.
Why are Lisp people such smart-alecs?
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> wrote in message
······················@pandora.upc.no...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:40:37 +0200, Andrew Wolven <·······@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>> But why am I wasting my freaking time hunting down fast algorithms to do
>> Matrices. Matrices are the eloquent way of solving problems like
>> splines,
>> and I have found out from Matt D. and Richard Fateman that either you
>> have
>> more declarations than code or you do everything with lists. Either way
>> I
>> can't read my own code to know what is going on!!!
>> That is neither the heart of Lisp nor KBE. Your code should be almost
>> self
>> explanatory and only require comments to explain the logic behind the
>> *concept* of the problem you are trying to solve and not comments
>> describing
>> optimization tricks.
>
> Well there is maxima...
>
> Maxima is a system for the manipulation of symbolic and numerical
> expressions, including differentiation, integration, Taylor series,
> Laplace transforms, ordinary differential equations, systems of linear
> equations, polynomials, and sets, lists, vectors, matrices, and tensors.
> Maxima yields high precision numeric results by using exact fractions,
> arbitrary precision integers, and arbitrarily precision floating point
> numbers. Maxima can plot functions and data in two and three dimensions.
>
> http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
>
> Dosn't that contain what you are looking for?
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> I am not saying that maxima should not be a source of knowledge, it would be
> idiotic to dump it, but if someone were to at least put a 1 character reader
> macro of the type like (, {, [, or | which you could nest lisp code into,
> and share variables between lisp and maxima, then I would use it more.
You call Maxima in Lisp by using #$(MAXIMA-EXPRESSIONS HERE)$
And there's naming convention to share variables between Maxima and Lisp.
regards,
Stefan
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:40:37 -0500, Andrew Wolven wrote:
> I am a mechanical engineering major. Why do I feel like I need to use
> MATLAB?
Because you don't know what else is out there?
>
> My idea of a dream system to do computer-aided engineering would consist of
> the stuff like:
>
> -Greek Keyboard. (actually, why use a keyboard?)
You have a better idea? None of the "recognition" systems (voice,
handwriting, thought) are at all beyond the toy stage and doing everything
with a mouse seems ungainly.
> -Units. Built deep into the numerical processing of the language and
> the chip. Add 1m and 1kg and trap!
Ah, tagged architectures. It's been done, and it's been abandoned. This is
something that's easier to do in software.
> -Matrices. Damn near everything in CAD can be put into a matrix and
> juggled around. (P.S. I hate floating point.)
Standard commodity Intel chips have SIMD ISAs now. If you are wizardly,
you can even coerce a GPU to do the heavy lifting.
> I can't help anyone solve these problems if I have to write
> matrix-inverse first. Why the eff were units not included in common
> lisp to begin with?
Because it's pretty trivial to implement them so they work the way you
want them to work. Plus, Common Lisp was designed as a GENERAL-PURPOSE
programming language, not a tool specific to engineers or crystallography
weenies or pipe stress freaks or whatever you happen to be.
> WHY AM I USING AN INTEL PROCESSOR?
Because they're both fast and cheap.
> An intel
> processor is designed to do backflips in order to run old code.
So? They're both fast and cheap.
> (the
> intel processor exists because hardware has become soft and software has
> become hard.)
Cute. Meaningless, but cute.
>
> The state of the CS community is just pathetic.
Waaaaah!
>
> GET ORGANIZED! or write video games.
Waaaaaaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
>
> grumble grumble grumble,
> I hate c.l.l. and I am actually going to click send.
Drunker than usual, eh?
--
My address happens to be com (dot) gmail (at) usenet (plus) chbarts,
wardsback and translated.
It's in my header if you need a spoiler.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
I come to you finally finishing a degree in mechanical engineering after
spending many years learning lisp. Learning lisp for the purpose of
engineering, believing that lisp is the best tool for the job.
I say to you that there is a looming energy crisis, a crisis which needs the
absolute best tools solve or we as a species are screwed.
You dodge of the fact that the computer industry does not pull it's own
weight by claiming that I am intoxicated.
Even though my school is not MIT or Stanford, I tell you that what the
students are using are software packages like Matlab and Excel. "Lisp,
Never heard of it." they say "Haha funny name."
I shouldn't as a mechanical engineering student (who has done Real
engineering and can give references) .. I shouldn't be worrying about coding
at such a low level because all of you think in terms of what is cheaper or
easier. A computer processor is just another program, except it is built on
physics. Telling me that doing things with an intel processor because they
are cheaper is absurd. All of the enhancements to a processor to support
lisp having the same actual bit length for numbers as other languages
*should be stock* . So long as lisp is slower and clumsier doing numerical
processing than other languages there exists a need for a processor to
support it. So long as we launch space telescopes who mismatch units, there
is a need for a language to support it. You are dodging the truth by
thinking that money itself is truth. Money is simply mind control. There
are problems to solve on this earth that are going to take more than just
bank balances. If you're so concerned about your luxury lifestyle that you
refuse to do the job right then you are part of the problem not the
solution.
AKW
Andrew Wolven wrote:
> You are dodging the truth by
> thinking that money itself is truth. Money is simply mind control. There
> are problems to solve on this earth that are going to take more than just
> bank balances. If you're so concerned about your luxury lifestyle that you
> refuse to do the job right then you are part of the problem not the
> solution.
Whatever it is you're taking it's strong stuff ;-)
Or you're just trolling of course.
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:02:50 -0500, Andrew Wolven wrote:
> I shouldn't as a mechanical engineering student (who has done Real
> engineering and can give references) .. I shouldn't be worrying about coding
> at such a low level because all of you think in terms of what is cheaper or
> easier.
Then fix it yourself; add "higher levels" if you cannot find already
existing software that suits you.
> A computer processor is just another program, except it is built on
> physics. Telling me that doing things with an intel processor because they
> are cheaper is absurd.
The buy something more expensive that has more "high level"-stuff already
hardcoded in it - if that is what you want.
> All of the enhancements to a processor to support lisp having the same
> actual bit length for numbers as other languages *should be stock* .
> So long as lisp is slower and clumsier doing numerical processing than
> other languages there exists a need for a processor to support it. So
> long as we launch space telescopes who mismatch units, there is a need
> for a language to support it.
Try fixing it yourself. You already understand that hardware is just
hardcoded software with interfaces you can abstract upon like software
itself - then later hardcode parts of it when you are satisfied. You'll
then understand how hard this actually is.
> If you're so concerned about your luxury lifestyle that you refuse to
> do the job right then you are part of the problem not the solution.
In concerns to energy we are basically fucked. We've had our fun for a
short burst, and we'll fall like all other empires before us have. There
are no viable alternatives when the oil runs out. When it runs
out it will run out fast; like the milk in your glass - it is either
some milk there or there is none - you consume the same amount per unit of
time until it suddenly is empty. Equivalent amounts of energy from
any other source that is not somehow depending on oil is hard or almost
impossible to extract. Even basic things like food require large
amounts of oil; you are using something like 10 units of oil for each unit
of food that hits your plate. Check out:
http://www.google.no/search?q=peak+oil
Just try yourself; try to figure out how to do both energy and software
the "right way" - it is not as easy as you think. What do you want us to
do - and how should we do it?
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
"Lars Rune N�stdal" <···········@gmail.com> wrote in message
···································@gmail.com...
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:02:50 -0500, Andrew Wolven wrote:
>
>> I shouldn't as a mechanical engineering student (who has done Real
>> engineering and can give references) .. I shouldn't be worrying about
>> coding
>> at such a low level because all of you think in terms of what is cheaper
>> or
>> easier.
>
> Then fix it yourself; add "higher levels" if you cannot find already
> existing software that suits you.
You're right.
>
>> A computer processor is just another program, except it is built on
>> physics. Telling me that doing things with an intel processor because
>> they
>> are cheaper is absurd.
>
> The buy something more expensive that has more "high level"-stuff already
> hardcoded in it - if that is what you want.
Yes, that is what I want. I am guessing that simply to do a study to find
out how much the processor itself will cost, what resources it will take
(time and human) and to retain some manufacturing will be in the tens of
millions. Of course, that's just the preliminary study, not the design
cost. I expect that a chip design is at least as complicated as a new road
vehicle design.
I have about $15 right now, that should cover me until the end of tuesday.
>
>> All of the enhancements to a processor to support lisp having the same
>> actual bit length for numbers as other languages *should be stock* .
>> So long as lisp is slower and clumsier doing numerical processing than
>> other languages there exists a need for a processor to support it. So
>> long as we launch space telescopes who mismatch units, there is a need
>> for a language to support it.
>
> Try fixing it yourself. You already understand that hardware is just
> hardcoded software with interfaces you can abstract upon like software
> itself - then later hardcode parts of it when you are satisfied. You'll
> then understand how hard this actually is.
>
I know.
>> If you're so concerned about your luxury lifestyle that you refuse to
>> do the job right then you are part of the problem not the solution.
>
> In concerns to energy we are basically fucked. We've had our fun for a
> short burst, and we'll fall like all other empires before us have. There
> are no viable alternatives when the oil runs out. When it runs
> out it will run out fast; like the milk in your glass - it is either
> some milk there or there is none - you consume the same amount per unit of
> time until it suddenly is empty. Equivalent amounts of energy from
> any other source that is not somehow depending on oil is hard or almost
> impossible to extract. Even basic things like food require large
> amounts of oil; you are using something like 10 units of oil for each unit
> of food that hits your plate. Check out:
> http://www.google.no/search?q=peak+oil
>
-solar energy
-geothermal
-nukular
-other forms of fossil fuels
we can at least try to break our fall.
> Just try yourself; try to figure out how to do both energy and software
> the "right way" - it is not as easy as you think. What do you want us to
> do - and how should we do it?
>
I am done freaking out now. I just want the computer science community to
recognize it's lack of vision as a whole. I could ramble on about it, but
not now. Let's just not repeat the mistakes of recent history.
AKW
> --
> Lars Rune N�stdal
> http://lars.nostdal.org/
>
"Andrew Wolven" <·······@nospam.net> writes:
> I am done freaking out now. I just want the computer science community to
> recognize it's lack of vision as a whole. I could ramble on about it, but
> not now. Let's just not repeat the mistakes of recent history.
Do you think posting to a USENET group (for a fairly low-profile
language at that) is a good way of addressing "the computer science
community," whatever that is?
"Bill Atkins" <······@rpi.edu> wrote in message
···················@bertrand.local...
> "Andrew Wolven" <·······@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> I am done freaking out now. I just want the computer science community
>> to
>> recognize it's lack of vision as a whole. I could ramble on about it,
>> but
>> not now. Let's just not repeat the mistakes of recent history.
>
> Do you think posting to a USENET group (for a fairly low-profile
> language at that) is a good way of addressing "the computer science
> community," whatever that is?
You're right! I almost forgot my invitation to Good Morning America.
Andrew Wolven wrote:
> "Bill Atkins" <······@rpi.edu> wrote in message
> ···················@bertrand.local...
> > "Andrew Wolven" <·······@nospam.net> writes:
> >
> >> I am done freaking out now. I just want the computer science community
> >> to
> >> recognize it's lack of vision as a whole. I could ramble on about it,
> >> but
> >> not now. Let's just not repeat the mistakes of recent history.
> >
> > Do you think posting to a USENET group (for a fairly low-profile
> > language at that) is a good way of addressing "the computer science
> > community," whatever that is?
>
> You're right! I almost forgot my invitation to Good Morning America.
Why don't you try /. where you will be amongst fellow trolls ?
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:19:31 +0200, Lars Rune N�stdal
<···········@gmail.com> wrote:
> In concerns to energy we are basically fucked. We've had our fun for a
> short burst, and we'll fall like all other empires before us have. There
> are no viable alternatives when the oil runs out. When it runs
> out it will run out fast; like the milk in your glass - it is either
> some milk there or there is none - you consume the same amount per unit
> of
> time until it suddenly is empty. Equivalent amounts of energy from
> any other source that is not somehow depending on oil is hard or almost
> impossible to extract. Even basic things like food require large
> amounts of oil; you are using something like 10 units of oil for each
> unit
> of food that hits your plate. Check out:
> http://www.google.no/search?q=peak+oil
>
> Just try yourself; try to figure out how to do both energy and software
> the "right way" - it is not as easy as you think. What do you want us to
> do - and how should we do it?
>
So yo haven't heard of coal I take it.
Those reserves are nowhere near empty.
And you can refine oil from it like the germans did in WW2.
I'm getting tired of these doomsday predicters.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> So yo haven't heard of coal I take it.
> Those reserves are nowhere near empty.
But itt's still a nonrenewable resource. In a hundred years, we'd
have to worry about peak coal.
> And you can refine oil from it like the germans did in WW2.
Yes, but the process is pretty rough environmentally - probably even
worse than oil - assuming you're talking about Fischer-Tropsch.
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:01:49 +0200, Bill Atkins <······@rpi.edu> wrote:
> "John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
>
>> So yo haven't heard of coal I take it.
>> Those reserves are nowhere near empty.
>
> But itt's still a nonrenewable resource. In a hundred years, we'd
> have to worry about peak coal.
>
>> And you can refine oil from it like the germans did in WW2.
>
> Yes, but the process is pretty rough environmentally - probably even
> worse than oil - assuming you're talking about Fischer-Tropsch.
Yes coal production is messy.
Environmentally it devastates the area. In China alone
coal mining killed 6000-10000 people last year.
Of course it also pollutes a lot. Nice thing likes nitric oxide
ozone and sulphuric oxide plus the good old C02.
I'm just suggesting that we may have more time than you think.
Movement away from the oil economy will come gradually as the
resources become more expensive and other alternatives
become more lucrative.
I just don't think that wading in our own filth is enough to destroy
civilization. But to make living in it miserable.. sure
You might want to pick up the September edition of Scientific American.
"Special Issue: Energy's future beyond carbon" to get some ideas.
www.sciam.com
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:39:34 +0200, John Thingstad wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:19:31 +0200, Lars Rune Nøstdal
> <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In concerns to energy we are basically fucked. We've had our fun for a
>> short burst, and we'll fall like all other empires before us have. There
>> are no viable alternatives when the oil runs out. When it runs
>> out it will run out fast; like the milk in your glass - it is either
>> some milk there or there is none - you consume the same amount per unit
>> of
>> time until it suddenly is empty. Equivalent amounts of energy from
>> any other source that is not somehow depending on oil is hard or almost
>> impossible to extract. Even basic things like food require large
>> amounts of oil; you are using something like 10 units of oil for each
>> unit
>> of food that hits your plate. Check out:
>> http://www.google.no/search?q=peak+oil
>>
>> Just try yourself; try to figure out how to do both energy and software
>> the "right way" - it is not as easy as you think. What do you want us to
>> do - and how should we do it?
>>
>
> So yo haven't heard of coal I take it.
> Those reserves are nowhere near empty.
> And you can refine oil from it like the germans did in WW2.
Maybe you are right, but there might be other problems with coal - like
a major increase in pollution which leads to an increase in already
existing problems related to this.
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:19:31 +0200, Lars Rune N�stdal
> <···········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In concerns to energy we are basically fucked. We've had our fun for a
>> short burst, and we'll fall like all other empires before us have. There
>> are no viable alternatives when the oil runs out. When it runs
>> out it will run out fast; like the milk in your glass - it is either
>> some milk there or there is none - you consume the same amount per
>> unit of
>> time until it suddenly is empty. Equivalent amounts of energy from
>> any other source that is not somehow depending on oil is hard or almost
>> impossible to extract. Even basic things like food require large
>> amounts of oil; you are using something like 10 units of oil for
>> each unit
>> of food that hits your plate. Check out:
>> http://www.google.no/search?q=peak+oil
>>
>> Just try yourself; try to figure out how to do both energy and software
>> the "right way" - it is not as easy as you think. What do you want us to
>> do - and how should we do it?
>>
>
> So yo haven't heard of coal I take it.
> Those reserves are nowhere near empty.
> And you can refine oil from it like the germans did in WW2.
> I'm getting tired of these doomsday predicters.
>
Sure, you *can* use coal to get oil, but thats only part of the
picture. In fact, I don't believe the issue is running out of oil
specifically - the problem is the infrastructure necessary to obtain
the quantities of oil necessary, whether this is from refining coal or
tapping previously difficult and less economical reserves or even
moving some power requirements to other sources, such as bio-diesel,
ethonol, wind, solar, etc etc. It takes *time* to establish the
alternative infrastructure and considerable capital investment.
The world isn't going to suddenly wake up one morning and find there
is no more oil available. However, I think we will see major economic
changes as the costs associated with producing oil increases combined
with the rapid growth out-stripping our ability to produce it. For
example, China a little over 10 years ago was a net exporter of oil.
Now, they are the second highest consumer on the planet (U.S. being
first) - thats a major increase in demand at a time when therre have
been few (any?) readily accessible large oil reserves discovered and
countries like the UK, which in the early 80's were net exporters and
now importers. Combine this with the fact that most of the oil
reserves we can get data on show that we have processed the first
"easy" 50% and while there is still a lot there, the rate at which we
can extract it decreases as the levels get lower and the costs
increase.
This has been made worse by what appears to be inadequate investment
in infrastructure maintenance by many of the major oil producers. One
report I saw ont he recent oil leaks in pipelines in Alaska indicates
these are largely due to inadequate maintenance of the lines. This is
not to say the oil companies have been any worse than other companies
- reduced maintenance for short term profits and shareholder benefits
has been a growing trend across the board.
I doubt very much that there is a doomsday around the corner, but I do
think we are going to see some major economic and social upheavel over
the next couple of decades and would not be surprised to find we have
a totally different economic, political and social landscape at the
other end. Many people in the developed nations are going to be faced
with some singificant changes that will probably be very difficult for
some to adjust to.
Tim
--
tcross (at) rapttech dot com dot au
Andrew Wolven wrote:
> I come to you finally finishing a degree in mechanical engineering after
> spending many years learning lisp. Learning lisp for the purpose of
> engineering, believing that lisp is the best tool for the job.
If you are interested in joining the "lisp-matrix" project (to make an
optimized linear algebra library for ANSI Common Lisp that exploits
optimized BLAS and LAPACK as well as all sorts of Lisp macro tricks for
fast code that's easy to use), feel free to shoot me an e-mail. I
think Lisp could be a great tool for the numerical analysis /
scientific computing community, especially since algorithms are getting
more and more complicated in order to exploit problem structure and
optimize for modern computer architectures. There are actually a
number of packages out there that could help you -- they just need some
glue logic to make them more amenable to your application.
"Best tool for the job" -- you know as an engineer that there is no one
tool that does everything. For example, Matlab doesn't implement the
LU factorization in Matlab -- that would be bloody slow. It calls
LAPACK, which has an optimized implementation in Fortran. There's
nothing wrong with coupling different tools together -- it saves a lot
of work and gets the job done efficiently. Lisp is a great language, I
know, but why should we redo _everything_ in Lisp, when it's plenty
easy to call other libraries written in C, Fortran, or even Octave (see
the cl-octave project at common-lisp.net) from Lisp?
I can guess that you mean well and you want to make a difference in the
world. I think the best place to start is to make incremental changes
rather than a big revolution. Big revolutions are mostly luck;
incremental changes are about hard work put in by countless engineers,
just like you.
Best,
mfh
"Andrew Wolven" <·······@nospam.net> writes:
> I am a mechanical engineering major. Why do I feel like I need to use
> MATLAB?
>
> My idea of a dream system to do computer-aided engineering would consist of
> the stuff like:
>
> -Greek Keyboard. (actually, why use a keyboard?)
This is the least of your problems.
> -Units. Built deep into the numerical processing of the language and the
> chip. Add 1m and 1kg and trap!
It has no business in the chip, but in the language's numeric tower,
yes. There are implementations of such things for Lisp and for
Smalltalk. You might ask yourself why it is your fellow engineers
don't use them.
> -Matrices. Damn near everything in CAD can be put into a matrix and juggled
> around. (P.S. I hate floating point.)
Floating point should be available, but it should also be hard to get
to. For every legitimate use of floating point I've seen, I've
probably seen 1M incorrect uses. Yuck.
> The state of the CS community is just pathetic.
Ahem! You seem to confuse CS (which is doing pretty well) with
software engineering (which is pitiful) with software for CAD. Unless
you're putting money on the table to actually build a better system
for computer aided engineering, maybe you should ask yourself *why*
computer support for engineering is the way it is. I wish it were the
case that the average engineer gets furious at his tools for making
him learn floating point rules (or ignoring them and letting the
problems get caught in testing), and ... uh, actually your main
legitimate complaint seems to be that your software systems screw up
their numerics. Yup, floating point numbers and modular arithmetic
suck, as does computer ignorance of units, and I don't really get why
engineers tolerate it, but they seem to. And I doubt things will
improve in that area much as long as the users are complacent.
> It has no business in the chip, but in the language's numeric tower,
> yes. There are implementations of such things for Lisp and for
> Smalltalk. You might ask yourself why it is your fellow engineers
> don't use them.
I want to be able to pass a number of the exact same bit width back and
forth between a C program and lisp in the same clock cycle. (meaning
numbers that use the entire bit width for their precision)
I wonder if anyone could tell us what the major issues were with
constructing allegrosolid.
Why does Mirai bounce? Other graphics programs I have used on the same
machine don't experience that latency effect. (and I'm not talking about
paging.) You want your graphics program to snap and click. The whole
system (CAD Land) is not going to be rewritten in lisp in a day. I have to
interface with C and Fortran.
Would it just be a war where we put out a 70 bit chip for a 64 bit math word
and then the C world starts using 70 bit math words? Can one design a chip
where it *actually makes sense* performance wise to attach specialized type
and physical-units logic to those other six or 8 bits and not have
crossovers to math for those C people who want to run with afterburners?
What about hardware support for garbage collection? Special high-speed
stacks necked into ram at the minimum?
(I am neither a computer engineer nor knowledgeable about GC.)
What about separate caches for microcode and ordinary machine language such
that the processor would not have to page (to ram) in and out slightly
different instructions all the time?
Couldn't you just build a radically different box which happens to be
backwards compatible to C programs and call the damn thing an
engineering-science-art computer? Don't worry about cash registers. Don't
worry about microcontrollers (for now). An engineering machine?
God I am out of my mind because they will find a way to abuse the system.
Are not other programmers getting closer to lisp all the time and shouldn't
they? Language standards are a good idea for engineering computing.
Damn how about a lisp-chip connection machine. University of Illinois wants
to build a supercomputer I heard, why not UI Chicago? For designing
airplanes. Get the whole model in there using some kind of thing like
screamer or starlisp. Have a huge room full of flat-panel HD's. It's
really a matter of the money, not of the technology. Not that it wouldn't
take ten years, but what else would I wanna do if I got the cash for that.
Yeah it's a damn dream. So what?
Have a good one,
AKW
wait: what implementations for lisp and smalltalk are there you speak of?