C# is The Language Of The Year
I'm just pointing out the difference between x is a tool, and all tools are x. To say that a language is a tool to write code is not to say that notepad is a language.
It's the same logical fallacy.
It's the same logical fallacy.
Last edited on
Yeah, you're right, that is faulty reasoning. I don't think it's quite the same fallacy, however.
Christname wrote:
Vlad wrote
Zero wrote:
languages is a tool to write code
notepad is a tool to write code
therefore notepad is a language
let language be x, and tool to write code be y, and notepad be n
x is a y
n is a y
therefore an is an x
Now substitute person for x, mammal for y, and elephant for n.
It's exactly the same fallacy.
| I don't think it's quite the same fallacy, however. |
Vlad wrote
| Language - is a tool to write code. |
Zero wrote:
| Notepad.exe is a language, since it is a tool to write code. |
languages is a tool to write code
notepad is a tool to write code
therefore notepad is a language
let language be x, and tool to write code be y, and notepad be n
x is a y
n is a y
therefore an is an x
Now substitute person for x, mammal for y, and elephant for n.
It's exactly the same fallacy.
Last edited on
I love logic and fallacies. They are concepts that are apparently completely foreign to a very large portion of the population of my nation.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Ok well I can agree with that reasoning iseeplusplus. Thank you and yes that was a bad example, but then again It has been a long day ;p.
The original things I was trying to make a point of is these quotes
and
The thing I don't necessarily understand is if C++ is a language, and notepad is a language, what makes C# a technology? Why is C++ not a technology? Or notepad now that I think of it. Both of them are a set of numerous tools. Just the way it was state does not make sense what so ever. That is what I was trying to point out and used a bad example to do.
@Cheraphy thanks for calling us all stupid ;p
@devon we know we all decided we should start to take after you more. Only joking mate.
The original things I was trying to make a point of is these quotes
| C++ is a programming language. C# is a programming technolodgy. |
and
| LANGUAGE - IS A TOOL TO WRITE CODE. TECHNOLODGY IS A SET OF NUMEROUS TOOLS. |
The thing I don't necessarily understand is if C++ is a language, and notepad is a language, what makes C# a technology? Why is C++ not a technology? Or notepad now that I think of it. Both of them are a set of numerous tools. Just the way it was state does not make sense what so ever. That is what I was trying to point out and used a bad example to do.
@Cheraphy thanks for calling us all stupid ;p
@devon we know we all decided we should start to take after you more. Only joking mate.
Last edited on
While we are on the topic. Vlad never really said that C# is not a language or that C++ is not a technology.
He said this,
To interpret this as an argument that C++ is not a technology and C# is not a programming language, you would need the supposition that programming languages and technologies exclude each other.
Personally I would say that C++ and C# are both technologies and programming languages which is not inconsistent with Vlad's statements. Although I'm not exactly sure what he meant to imply.
He said this,
| C++ is a programming language. C# is a programming technolodgy. |
To interpret this as an argument that C++ is not a technology and C# is not a programming language, you would need the supposition that programming languages and technologies exclude each other.
Personally I would say that C++ and C# are both technologies and programming languages which is not inconsistent with Vlad's statements. Although I'm not exactly sure what he meant to imply.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I agree, just the way he phrased it made the impression that one was this and the other was this. Which in fact each of them are both. Lol its quite funny how threads start as one thing then end up in a debate that is usually pointless.
Last edited on
so is this a tautology??
ooh wait its a fallacy :/
| let language be x, and tool to write code be y, and notepad be n x is a y n is a y therefore an is an x |
ooh wait its a fallacy :/
languages is a tool to write code notepad is a tool to write code therefore notepad is a language let language be x, and tool to write code be y, and notepad be n x is a y n is a y therefore an is an x |
Languages is not an object, it is a set of objects of which things can be members.
So Languages are a tool to write code is more correctly written as:
If x is a tool to write code, then it is a language.
As opposed to T(l), where languages is an entity.
Therefore you would have
∀x T(x)→L(x) //if x is a tool to write code, it is a language
T(n) //notepad is a tool to write code
-
L(n) //therefore notepad is a language
| Languages is not an object, it is a set of objects of which things can be members. So Languages are a tool to write code is more correctly written as: If x is a tool to write code, then it is a language. |
People are mammals.
If x is a mammal then x is a person.
Then again, the way I accidently made languages plural and tool singular, your example, would be corrected to say.
If x is a language then x is a tool. And there exists only one tool such that the tool is a language. |
What I meant to say was languages are tools, or a language is a tool.
Last edited on
This is what happens when we try to talk about C# being declared the so-called "language of the year". It always contains this post with me pointing out that we've derailed the thread to discussing a mixture of English grammar and logic.
Language is notation. Abstract, non-physical concept.
Tools are real, physical objects (like a hammer or a computer). For some people, tools are also computer programs (which can be also abstract, when written on a paper), but to call them tools, they must be run on a computer, so again physical objects are mandatory.
Languages are not tools. I don't need a computer or any physical object to define a language. I don't need a computer or any physical object to use a language. I don't need it to reason in a language.
Tools are real, physical objects (like a hammer or a computer). For some people, tools are also computer programs (which can be also abstract, when written on a paper), but to call them tools, they must be run on a computer, so again physical objects are mandatory.
Languages are not tools. I don't need a computer or any physical object to define a language. I don't need a computer or any physical object to use a language. I don't need it to reason in a language.
| Tools are real, physical objects |
If we accept that very narrow definition, then languages are not tools. I don't imagine many people would be willing to do that however. Psychologists, for instance, wouldn't be very happy if they couldn't call relaxation techniques tools for managing stress.
One of the broader definitions of tool is "a means to an end" and a language is certainly that.
A tool is any thing that can directly translate one form of input to another form of input.
Hammers are tools. They translate one form of motion to another.
Compilers are tools. They translate one form of instructions to another.
Languages are Code is input for tools, specifically compilers.
Edit: Sorry, Languages are a way to use a tool or set of tools.
Hammers are tools. They translate one form of motion to another.
Compilers are tools. They translate one form of instructions to another.
Edit: Sorry, Languages are a way to use a tool or set of tools.
Last edited on