
Darcs' Theory of patches - vorador
http://darcs.net/manual/node9.html#SECTION00910000000000000000
======
blordosh
Let me define pseudo-math to be the approach of making a few mathematical
definitions and then proving only some trivial "theorems."

Theorem. The Darc's theory of patches is pseudo-math.

Proof. By definition. QED

~~~
mustpax
Personally, I kinda like watching physicists get slightly peeved when you
point out that their models could stand being a little bit more rigorous. I
mean check out this paragraph:

"""I think a little background on the author is in order. I am a physicist,
and think like a physicist. The proofs and theorems given here are what I
would call ``physicist'' proofs and theorems, which is to say that while the
proofs may not be rigorous, they are practical, and the theorems are intended
to give physical insight. It would be great to have a mathematician work on
this to give patch theory better formalized foundations."""

Which translates to: you know what, we both know this is all pretty much
correct and if you think you need to spend a couple more hours (or days)
setting down the mathematical foundations in excruciating detail be my guest,
but I'd rather read a thousand papers on string theory.

I mean, I pretty much agree. After all, I studied computer science. We make
physicists look pretty rigorous.

~~~
blordosh
Formal computer science usually has more formal proofs than most branches of
mathematics. Computer scientists will lay out an explicit proof by induction
where most mathematicians will simply write "by induction". At least that's
been my experience.

~~~
otto
I found that to be quite the opposite. Having finished my CS degree and taken
various analysis of algorithm classes I found proofs to involve lots more hand
holding and shortcuts.

I'm working on finishing my Mathematics degree and proofs are much more
vigorous.

~~~
jules
Check out some papers on type theory. They prove the most trivial things in
excruciating detail.

