Re: painters

From: alex goldman (hello_at_spamm.er)
Date: 01/17/05 

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:50:57 -0800

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

> Edi Weitz wrote:
>
>> I can't see why someone interested in Lisp /must/ be
>> interested in this book. I certainly don't think reading it is a
>> requirement to participate in c.l.l.
>
> I never said that. I was merely pointing out that he
> stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book
> and, therefore, since lisp was part of that subject matter,
> we could conclude he was not interested in lisp.
>
> Paul

But Edi Weitz's interpretation of what you said logically follows from
what you did say. You used "logic" to show I'm not supposed to be on
c.l.l., and since first-order logic is one of my interests, here it goes:

You stated

1. Not being interested in Lisp means you must not participate in c.l.l

   (<- (not cll) (not (interest lisp)))

2. Being uninterested in something implies being uninterested in all its
parts

   (<- (not (interest ?x)) (and (not (interest ?y)) (part-of ?x ?y)))

3. Lisp is part of the subject of the book ("Hackers and Painters")
   
   (<- (part-of lisp (subject book)))

And to tie things up, we add

4. Being interested in something (a book) is equivalent to being interested
in its subject

    a. (<- (interest ?x) (interest (subject ?x)))
    b. (<- (interest (subject ?x)) (interest ?x))

Using standard FOL inference rules, we conclude: "Someone interested in Lisp
must be interested in this book":

    (<- (interest book) (interest lisp))

and assuming people read things (books) they are interested in:

    (<- (read ?x) (interest ?x))

"Reading it is a requirement to participate in c.l.l.":

    (<- (read book) cll)

So what you "never said" is actually what you said.

Smart/educated humans have a knack for doing these calculations
subconsciously, as I'm sure Dr. Weitz did.

As an exercise, apply contraposition to

   (<- (can-do-fol ?x) (smart ?x))

and unify ?x with yourself.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: painters
    ... Edi Weitz wrote: ... I certainly don't think reading it is a ... stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book ... we could conclude he was not interested in lisp. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
    ... a few days ago i read paul graham's summary of john mccarthy's ... paper, and then started reading the original, and On Lisp. ... which would include all of the library AND compiler. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: painters
    ... I certainly don't think reading it is a ... > stated he was uninterested in the subject matter of the book ... > we could conclude he was not interested in lisp. ... Paul, that's approximately insane. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Weird BG spike
    ... > Paul M. Cook wrote: ... >> with some low-sugar coffee creamer. ... > sometimes meters will give wildly inaccurate readings. ... > high or low reading. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Build and Sysgen
    ... Chris Tacke ... > have to worry about a reinstall. ... Have been reading the ... >> Paul A. Lowe ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsce.platbuilder)