pacjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 1 year agoI absolutely love VideoLAN's stance regarding patentslemmy.dbzer0.comimagemessage-square68fedilinkarrow-up11.05Karrow-down111
arrow-up11.04Karrow-down1imageI absolutely love VideoLAN's stance regarding patentslemmy.dbzer0.compacjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square68fedilink
minus-squareGeniusIsme@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16arrow-down5·1 year agoProofs can be represented as programs, not the other way around. Also, USA allows for algorithm parents, and algorithms are maths. While I agree with you, your reasoning is not correct.
minus-squarehglman@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up14arrow-down1·1 year agoNo, the proof - program correspondence is in both directions.
minus-squareGeniusIsme@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down5·1 year agoCorrespondence is quite a weak relation. Very far from one being another.
minus-squarelad@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 year agoI’d say if you ask a mathematician, they would disagree with you. But maybe that depends on how far they have gone into maths from common sense
minus-squarenakal@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoThat’s why it’s also called Curry-Howard isomorphism.
minus-squareMachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoCorrespondence is not correlation.
Proofs can be represented as programs, not the other way around. Also, USA allows for algorithm parents, and algorithms are maths. While I agree with you, your reasoning is not correct.
No, the proof - program correspondence is in both directions.
Correspondence is quite a weak relation. Very far from one being another.
I’d say if you ask a mathematician, they would disagree with you. But maybe that depends on how far they have gone into maths from common sense
That’s why it’s also called Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Correspondence is not correlation.