• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Neutral

About malune

  • Rank
  1. I wasn't really sure where to post this, but as a curious student who believes at least part of the GD.NET community has highly intelligent contributions, maybe this is the right place. :) I've been reading up about alot of subjects recently that I found myself interested in, and I thought it may be a good idea to actually express what I am thinking and question things in order to get constructive thoughts and ideas from others. Looking at previous work and history on Leonardo Da Vinci and Albert Einstein, I came to a personal conclusion that the reason they are considered geniuses was not solely due to their intelligence, but because of their outstanding contribution to knowledge which did not previously exist. They thought outside the box, created what their intuition believed was possible, and were classed as superhumanly intelligent by the masses. Einstein was meant to be poor at mathematics and partly dyslexic, yet he was still a genius because he invented and formulated empirical evidence which was not present at the time. I personally think he was driven by passion more than anything else. With passion, can we all be geniuses? Isn't what defines intelligence how much we can control our own minds anyway? Another commonality that is pertinent between Einstein and Da Vinci, is that they are clearly active thinkers, and what is left recorded of their lifestyles shows this as well. I also think nowadays people are moving into a passive mode of thinking. We play video games, listen to music, watch TV instead of doing other activities which may benefit us physically and mentally. I think the move from active thinking to passive thinking may degrade our ability to be truly intelligent, because a mix between passive thinking and a conceptual world seems to proclaim the eventual instantiation of a race of humans that are lazy, and just think about everything without wanting to do anything - a true computer scientist. ;) What, in your opinions, defines a real genius? Is the ability to harness this mental power within all of us but we just don't know how to use it? It is said humans only use 6% of their brains(saying that, I had a conversation with my younger brother and he said if we could control all of our brains, we could send ourselves hormones and therefore grow pubic hair at the age of 3), surely 94% of what is left holds immense untapped potential for the human race? Should we strive to be active thinkers or is passive thinking completely acceptable? Would the advocacy of active thinking help us change the way we understand ourselves, and help defy the boundaries of our minds?
  2. Lisp is King thread

    Cheers guys, I actually already own ANSI Common Lisp and On Lisp, I'm just interested in seeing what arguments people conjure against Lisp. My friend is big on C++ and he's trying to convince me to use that instead.
  3. Lisp is King thread

    As I said in the previous post, I've tried the search. That result did come up, but the guy did not post a link(unless I'm blind?).
  4. I've been trying to find the old thread "Lisp is King" as I started reading it a few days back and it seemed like one of the most interesting I'd read in a while. Can anyone give me the link - the search button does not work very well and I can no longer reproduce the search results that I had a few days ago. Thanks...
  5. Intuitionistic Logic

    Quote:Original post by TheWanderer Well, intuition does play a large role in the mathematical process. If you've ever heard of a conjecture, then you know that I am talking about. Still, it is important that the logical basis behind a conjeture be thoroughly explored. Doing so usually leads to a better understanding of what is being studied (as well as possibly results that follow the conjecture). No, it is not impossible to be an "intuitionist" (as I understand it) and learn math. You will be missing out on a very important part though. What do you mean by a very important part? As in what specifically will I miss out on?
  6. Intuitionistic Logic

    Quote:Original post by TheWanderer Constructivist Intuitionist Now where is that google smiley.... :D I do not know what exactly you are asking though, Malune. Basically, my understanding of maths is that it's foundations lie within logic. Now I may be very wrong, but if the foundations are logic, then if I take a completely different approach to studying logic, will this affect all further studies or will I be obliged to learn classical logic in order to be able to learn anything useful. In other words, can intuitionistic logic be used for the foundations of my mathematical knowledge - or will it dissalow me to learn methods which are based upon classical logic?
  7. Intuitionistic Logic

    Quote:Original post by Squirm I did check with dictionary.com first - both words definitely weren't in there :) Have to admit, that page makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever . . . Here's the dictionary reference to intuitionist. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=intuitionist I couldn't find anything for constructivism unfortunately in that dictionary - weird. I did spell it wrong in the OP though - sorry about that. I found a nice little page describing things adequately here(haven't had the chance to read it but it mentions socrates ;)): http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle.html
  8. Intuitionistic Logic

    Quote:Original post by Squirm Hi! I think you should instead stick to influentialisticism. That word doesn't mean anything either, but it sounds way cooler than either of your two! That wasn't very nice. Have you heard of Socrates? Maybe you should read up about him and find out one of the reasons he was so famous - for thinking outside the box and not assuming he knew everything, in fact he prefered thinking he knew nothing. Anyway, if you want to cure your ignorance: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntuitionisticLogic.html
  9. Intuitionistic Logic

    Hey there oh wise ones, I have a bugging question to ask... Bit 'o background, I've recently deducted that my mind is better suited towards constructivism and intuitionistic logic, and always have been. From high school onwards I've always pretty much self-taught myself because the teaching methods in England weren't based upon constructivist views. My mathematical question is this(not that I actually understand much maths apart from some of it's philosophical origins): Is it possible for me to remain within the intuitionistic branch of maths without using classical logic, and if it is possible, would it benefit me or not? I'm actually wanting to learn maths because it ties in closely with how Lisp works and I'd like to understand it's mathematical origins. :) Any help would be appreciated. :) [Edited by - malune on February 22, 2005 8:16:44 AM]
  10. Python, Lisp & C++ dev. question

    Thanks JuNC, this all seems to be getting alot clearer. :) Quote:Original post by tentoid This is probably not very helpful but I'm curious: why do you even want to wrap the Win32 API? You'll lose the portability and writing a wrapper will take a lot of time.. Why don't you use wxPython or something similiar if you want GUI stuff? What I'm basically trying to do is code a portable window framework that I can use with Lisp. I want it to interact directly with X and the Win32 API, for educational purposes. I'm prototyping the idea in Python at the moment to see if it's feasible for me to implement it in Lisp. I'm not exactly making life easy for myself, but this is so that I learn more about the underlying structure of the Win32 API/X. :)
  11. Python, Lisp & C++ dev. question

    Quote:Original post by JuNC No, you wouldn't need to wrap the whole API (although I'm sure you can find it's already done anyway). You can happily make a C function which contains your window startup code and can just call it to create your window (or whatever). You just decide what interface you'd like to the underlying API, perhaps something like: Init() // init the OS stuff Window OpenWindow(x,y) // create a window ResizeWindow(Window,w,h) // resize a given window Then just write the required C code underneath. So if I created this hypothetical interface, I would still have to convert many datatypes used by the Win32 API anyway wouldn't I? Some of the return datatypes are _stdcall, I'm not sure how this kind of datatype could be converted? This does facilitate what I'm trying to do though, thank you!
  12. I have a seemingly simple question. If I was to be programming Python, and I created extension modules for Python in C, could I use the functionality of, say the win32 API, without having to create glue code for all the functions contained therein? For example say I wanted to create a window (CreateWindow(int x, int y)), would I have to translate the win32 API to do this? I'm trying to do the same thing with Lisp(calling C++ from Lisp), would I have to create glue code for the Win32 API here as well? Any help would be much appreciated!
  13. Hey people, I recently started writing a software rasterizer in C++(for educational purposes of course), and half-way through the development I got interested in Lisp. I'm currently using CL-SDL, but there are a few things that are unclear to me, is it possible to bit shift in Lisp(like say to plot a 24 bit pixel)? Is everything that is possible in SDL with C++ possible in SDL with Common Lisp? I was also wondering about the impact that the GC would have on the performance. I noticed that it jittered slightly on some OpenGL demos, would there be any way to get rid of this through code optimisation? Also when I dragged an application from the background the demos slowed down from 400fps+ to 5-6fps, is there a valid reason why this should happen?
  14. I've recently been interested in using Common Lisp to create a game of some sort, but there are a few things that I am unclear on. I've looked at previous threads on this topic but could not find what I was looking for. I've done some minimal C/C++ games programming in the past but I now seem to prefer programming in Common Lisp. What I essentially want to do is either : a) Create a C++ 3D engine which interfaces with Common Lisp for game logic and everything else, meaning Common Lisp would be the highest layer of abstraction. or, b) Create a Lisp 3D engine which interfaces with C++ for any extra needed libraries. I like the idea of extending Lisp in the same way that Python can be extended, but I have no idea how to do this, does anyone have any pointers as to where I should start? Also another thing is, would the garbage collector in CMUCL cause problems for real time graphics? Would it even be conceivable to create a full 3D engine in Lisp? Thanks.
  15. Do I have a chance?

    Everyone has a chance! :) The fact that you're thinking about games programming now automatically puts you at an advantage against most students here in the UK anyway. Most students who go on to study computer games programming at uni here don't know anything about programming at all. Qualifications are obviously a big bonus, but if you can program, and you have ideas, and you can show people that you're good, it won't matter much :)
  • Advertisement