I Love Functional Programming

i love functional programming PROOF Consider the counter-example S ≜ {(○,●), (●,○), (○,○)} so that Mτ = {(i, λ ℓ•○), (j, λ ℓ•○), (k, λ ℓ•(ℓ < m ? ●•i○))}. We let X ≜ {(i, σ) | ∀j < i : σj = ●} so that ¬FD(X). We have Mτ↓● = {(i, λ ℓ•●), (k, λ ℓ•(ℓ < m ? ●•i○)) | k < m}, Mτ↓○ = {(j, λ ℓ•○), (k, λ ℓ•(ℓ < m ? ●•i○)) | k ≥ m} and ⊕⟦X⟧ = {(i, σ) | ∀j ≤ i : σj = ●}. We have αMτ (⊕⟦X⟧) = {s | Mτ↓s ⊆ ⊕⟦X⟧} = {●} whereas pre⟦τ⟧(αMτ(⊕⟦X⟧)) = pre⟦τ⟧({s | Mτ↓s ⊆ X}) = pre⟦τ⟧({●}) = {s | ∀s′ : r(s,s′) ⇒ s′ = ●} = ∅ since r(s,●) implies s = ● and r(●,○) holds.

A social media post says “i love functional programming” above an intimidating formal proof filled with symbols and abstract notation. The joke is that functional programming is presented as something to love, but the dense proof is deliberately incomprehensible and absurdly overcomplicated as a reaction to technical programming discourse. EN: A social media post says “i love functional programming” above an intimidating formal proof filled with symbols and abstract notation. The joke is that functional programming is presented as something to love, but the dense proof is deliberately incomprehensible and absurdly overcomplicated as a reaction to technical programming discourse.

• @gentoomemes / 8883 2024-01-21