Re: [stack] Comments on Trade-Offs in Systems of Notation/Programming Languages

btw, i just noticed that lou kauffman has a draft of his book-
length essay on LoF here:

http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/

this seems to go quite a ways beyond anything i've seen up til
now.

the graphics are terrific!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stevan apter" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [stack] Comments on Trade-Offs in Systems of Notation/Programming Languages


> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "William Tanksley, Jr" <[email protected]>
> > 
> > > almost instantly). (Unfortunately, Spencer-Brown's book on his
> > > calculus is marred by bad philosophizing and by having most of the
> > > book written in a compact but cryptic style, so it takes a while to
> > > "get" what he's done and why it's of value, but there are
> > > more-accessible introductions now available online.)
> > 
> > Where would you recommend going for an intro? Stevan's page on the
> > subject was interesting (although "compact but cryptic"), but I want
> > more. The PDF you linked to seems like a decent conceptual start, but
> > lacks depth and application (as far as I could see).
> 
> i realize that this is somewhat off-topic, but ...
> 
> nothing beats reading LoF in the original.  as chris says, it's
> a quirky, weird, unique book, and just manages to avoid total
> kookery by a cat's whisker.  (btw, spencer-brown's own publishing
> company was called "cat books", so there's another glancing 
> connection to this list.)  spencer-brown's footnotes are highly
> entertaining, and the julian press edition of the book (the first
> american edition) is vastly preferable to the ugly dutton paperback
> version.  you should be able to pick up a decent copy in dustjacket
> at abebooks for under $50.
> 
> and don't overlook the "companion" to LoF:  _only two can play
> this game_, with spencer-brown writing under his pseudonym james
> keys.  the footnotes are wonderful, and quite mad.
> 
> otherwise, take a look at how lou kauffman uses LoF notation to
> explain the computer-generated proof of the robbins problem:
> 
> http://www2.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/Robbins.htm
> 
> (and see his journal here:
> 
> http://www.cybsoc.org/lkonthevoid.htm)
> 
> 
> > 
> > > bracketed code in this way in the 1970's but almost COMPLETELY missed
> > > most of the importance of it, because I was still thinking of the
> > > language I was designing as a variant of Forth with a stricter
> > > adherence to an "RPN" style (no explicit loops, etc.).
> > 
> > I made a similar error in my understanding of Forth as well (although
> > mine wasn't as creative); it's easy to do when you think of Forth as
> > "postfix" rather than dataflow RPN.
> > 
> > >        http://www.boundarymath.org/papers/BLogic-intro.pdf
> > 
> > Noted, skimmed, and saved.
> > 
> > > (e.g., the set-inclusion paradoxes and the liar's paradox, etc.). My
> > > own more-philosophical way of dealing with the paradoxes (along with
> > 
> > We may have to take this particular part offline, unless you've got a
> > webpage... But I want to hear more. Imaginary truth values... Very
> > interesting.
> 
> in an appendix to LoF, spencer-brown describes a circuit he invented
> (and patented) which uses so-called imaginary boolean values.  i think
> the application was british rail, which may partly explain the downfall
> of that venerable institution.
> 
> > 
> > -Billy
> > 
>