213 karma · joined November 2, 2020
Edit: Ok, I a guess I am wrong if the reduction is n^ log n/(log log n)^2 we are back to exponential.
After talking to a mathematician friend I can assure you that contact with reality is not the main goal of abstract math. It is mental constructions that have logical consistency and probably this is not the perfect definition either. It is somewhat of an art which is rendered in the logical mind. However physicists (me) and engineers will align with you.
I want a very very coarse language that I can wrap around maybe an existing language, maybe after asking an llm to create an adapter that will allow me to type faster than the llm
Say SELECT c.name, c.email, SUM(o.total) AS spent FROM customers c JOIN orders o ON o.customer_id = c.id JOIN addresses a ON a.customer_id = c.id WHERE a.country = 'AR' AND o.created_at >= '2026-01-01' AND o.status <> 'cancelled' GROUP BY c.id, c.name, c.email HAVING SUM(o.total) > 1000 ORDER BY spent DESC LIMIT 10;
and compress it to
c+o+a|a.cn=AR,o.d>26,o.st!X|c:nm,em,$tt>1k|v10
(I made up a random example with claude).
I know about J and Q but they cannot be used with sql databases or existing python libraries.
Anyway. I am not sure if anyone has such concerns.
It has the most powerful macro system which enables one to define arbitrary syntax, essentially creating mini languages. So, CL is flexible enough to be able to create many languages without changing its fundamentals, such as those in the article. CL is like clay,not even lego bricks. And while this sounds wonderful and liberating, you end up having to learn many different mini languages for each library you use. I like this idea(l), but I do not have sophisticated enough needs to use it (I wish, feel free to hire me on a common lisp project, anyone), but I can imagine that for most programmers that much flexibility may become a source agony, especially if they need to work with other people's code, essentially having to learn (frequently badly?) designed mini languages.
He is writting the blog's text in Code praising Emacs. Makes me a bit sceptical or am I missing something?
> For example, Axiom's integrator gives you the answer when an answer exists. If one does not, it provides a proof that there is no answer. Integration is just one of a multitude of symbolic operations that Axiom provides.
What does "an answer exists" in this case? Is axiom able to prove that an integral does not have an answer mathematically, which seems impressive, or just that it can not be found using its own substitucion rules?