Post #1846829
2026-04-27 22:49 UTC
@jpoiret @carloangiuli I would say you are free to do what you want, but I also think it’s not correct usage to speak this way of functions. Why not instead speak to algorithms and codes, which are also mathematical objects very much worthy of study alongside functions? Is it mandatory, to maintain complete omertà when it comes to the mathematical notion of functions?
It isn’t right say that this is a matter of trading nuance with convenience. We can walk and talk at the same time. Functions and their code are different mathematical objects. We should be able to talk clearly and precisely about both.
Replies (1)
-
@jonmsterling@mathstodon.xyz 2026-04-27 22:52
@jpoiret @carloangiuli by the way, other branches of the thread pointed out that most of the motivations for “intensionality” of functions (like studying cost) are completely illusory. In a few POPL papers, my coauthors and I showed how you can study cost in terms of mathematical (extensional) functions very simply and elegantly, whereas nobody has ever managed to come up with a way to do so in terms of these illusory “intensional functions”. This is one of those cases where I challenge anyone who thinks it is important that functions be intensional to give me literally one example of a positive thing you can do with that. This is separate from the point about terminology, of course.