PID control is the classic example, but at a far enough abstraction any looping algorithm can be argued to be an implementation of the concepts underpinning calculus. If you’re ever doing any statistical analysis or anything in game design having to do with motion, those are both calculus too. Data science is pure calculus, ground up and injected into your eyeballs, and any string manipulation or Regex is going to be built on lambda calculus (though a very correct argument can be made that literally all computer science is built of lambda calculus so that might be cheating to include it)
Lambda calculus has no relation to calculus calculus, though.
Data science is pure calculus, ground up and injected into your eyeballs
Lol, I like that. I mean, there’s more calculus-y things, but it’s kind of unusual in that you can’t really interpret the non-calculus aspects of a neural net.
I think the issue here might be the overloading of terms - lambda calculus is both the system of notation and the common name for the conceptual underpinnings of computational theory. While there is little to no similarity between the abstracted study of change over a domain and a notational system, the idea of function composition or continuous function theory (or even just computation as a concept) are all closely related with basic concepts from “calculus calculus” like limit theory and integral progression.
I’m pretty sure the term was coined in the interwar era, so it’s kind of interesting if people are just calling the concept of functions “lambda calculus” now. Obviously they’re much older than that.
and the common name for the conceptual underpinnings of computational theory.
the idea of function composition or continuous function theory (or even just computation as a concept) are all closely related with basic concepts from “calculus calculus” like limit theory and integral progression.
Okay, meta question here: What would a ‘connection’ that you’re willing to accept actually look like? Those I’ve already presented are what I would call pretty explicit connections between the two fields (and fragmenting this into an explanation of how lambda calculus relies and expands on functional mechanics is going to be a loooong diversion). It’s starting to feel like you’re pretty entrenched in your initial position, and are just looking for an internet debate.
PID control is the classic example, but at a far enough abstraction any looping algorithm can be argued to be an implementation of the concepts underpinning calculus. If you’re ever doing any statistical analysis or anything in game design having to do with motion, those are both calculus too. Data science is pure calculus, ground up and injected into your eyeballs, and any string manipulation or Regex is going to be built on lambda calculus (though a very correct argument can be made that literally all computer science is built of lambda calculus so that might be cheating to include it)
Lambda calculus has no relation to calculus calculus, though.
Lol, I like that. I mean, there’s more calculus-y things, but it’s kind of unusual in that you can’t really interpret the non-calculus aspects of a neural net.
I wanna fight your math teachers. No seriously, what did they tell you calculus is if it’s got nothing in common with lambda calculus?
Is there some connection I’ve just been missing? It’s a pretty straight rewriting system, it seems Newton wouldn’t have had much use for it.
Lot’s of things get called “calculus”. Originally, calculus calculus was “the infinitesimal calculus” IIRC.
I think the issue here might be the overloading of terms - lambda calculus is both the system of notation and the common name for the conceptual underpinnings of computational theory. While there is little to no similarity between the abstracted study of change over a domain and a notational system, the idea of function composition or continuous function theory (or even just computation as a concept) are all closely related with basic concepts from “calculus calculus” like limit theory and integral progression.
edit: clarity
I’m pretty sure the term was coined in the interwar era, so it’s kind of interesting if people are just calling the concept of functions “lambda calculus” now. Obviously they’re much older than that.
What? Nobody’s doing that, it’s just a distinct area of mathematics - I’m pretty confused where you got that idea from at all.
So, I took it from these parts together:
I’m still not seeing the connection otherwise.
Okay, meta question here: What would a ‘connection’ that you’re willing to accept actually look like? Those I’ve already presented are what I would call pretty explicit connections between the two fields (and fragmenting this into an explanation of how lambda calculus relies and expands on functional mechanics is going to be a loooong diversion). It’s starting to feel like you’re pretty entrenched in your initial position, and are just looking for an internet debate.