User talk:ComputScientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, ComputScientist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits to System F page[edit]

Hi Computer Scientist: You removed the link that I had placed between genetic programming and System F. Your justification was that it was an advert and that lambda calulii are used for a thousand things.

I'd like to point out: . There are no practical applications of system F listed on the page. The article doesn't say what it's for, who uses it or why. I can't believe that wikipedia indeed discourages mentioning applications of theories on their related article.

. Perhaps there really are thousands of applications of Girard's system F out there, but where are they? Can you point them out to me (this by the way is a serious request)? Because this is my field and I don't know any beyond compiler theory (for which i hope wikipedia allows a link between it and system F). A quick search for system F on google yields only this wikipedia article (which by the way is so concise as to give almost no information). System F is almost unknown (at least in north america) and one of the major reason seems to be "what's it for?". Somehow, now that there is something concrete, you decided that it didn't belong in the world's encyclopedia.

. The "advert" as you called it was published and reviewed research. Perhaps there is something I didn't catch about the purpose of wikipedia, but I though that was exactly the kind of things (knowledge) that fits in there. It wasn't selling anything (which is what I understood adverts do), but it did mention research clearly related to System F.

Fbinard (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fbinard. I was wrong to insinuate that your citation was in bad faith, apologies. To address your complaints, I have tried to add some context to the article. System F is the basis of most functional programming languages, like Haskell and ML. These languages have very general application and have been used for many, many things, so it is odd to single one thing out. [It is possible that in North America, "polymorphic lambda calculus" is a more common name for this system.]
The question "what is System F for?" is valid. System F is of theoretical interest as a powerful strongly normalizing calculus, and as a basis for polymorphic functional languages. It would be wrong for people to ask "what is System F for?", and to get the answer "genetic programming".
I hope that is helpful, I am happy to discuss this further. You are always able to revert my edits. ComputScientist (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudos[edit]

Good edits on lambda calculus. You saved me some work I had planned on doing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ComputScientist (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to lambda calculus[edit]

Hi ComputerScientist, your recent edits to lambda calculus removed the link to "reification" article. I have restored the link, because "reification" is a very important concept in computer science; it contains links to a large number of other articles. Recently the "reification" article was improved and we are providing links back to it. This is a benefit of Wikipedia to link together a number of related concepts, such as lambda-expressions and first-class citizen messages in Smalltalk. Please see additional discussion notes at the Talk:Lambda calculus.

-- Equilibrioception (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Harrop[edit]

Thanks for picking up the ball on Harrop formulae. It does need more references, and a bit of extra work. Radagast3 (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And, no, I didn't define how to translate an arbitrary formula to a System F type -- I thought that was better in the System F article. I just included what I thought was needed for Harrop formulae. Radagast3 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Open access journals indexing[edit]

What do you mean "Open access journals are sadly not usually listed in indices."? ALmost all PLoS journals are indexed (several having very high impact factors) and so are most journals of BioMed Central (to just name the most visible ones in the life sciences). --Crusio (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Crusio. I was thinking in particular of Logical Methods in Computer Science, which according to its website, is parallel to Theory of Computing (journal); also Theory and Applications of Categories. To my knowledge these journals are not listed in indices either. Perhaps we can learn something from life sciences. These journals have substantial backing from respected members of the community, and are arguably more noteworthy then, say, Elsevier's Theoretical Computer Science. ComputScientist (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Metasyntactic Variables[edit]

Just drawing your attention to my post on the moving of the metasyntactic variable page Talk:Metasyntactic_variable. Over time this article is decayed to the point that the page only vaguely conveys the idea. If the term is used outside of computer science, then perhaps there should be subheadings on the page separating the usages (ie computer science from logic). I can definitely help on the computer science part. Let me know the verdict, look forward to working with people to get this page cleaned up. kf4yfd (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)