Re: [External] : Re: (*) -> 1

[Jean Louis]

* Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de> [2023-01-20 00:31]:
> Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:
> 
> > Bingo.  Ditto.  Shoulda just considered it
> > as trolling perhaps.  In any case, shoulda
> > stopped trying to help long ago.  Gave the
> > benefit of the doubt; wasted time helping.
> > Maybe Dunning-Kruger?  Whatever.
> 
> Exactly my thoughts.  This was really grotesque.  He just didn't even
> recognize how much energy people invested trying to help.  Or maybe he
> was just waiting for someone saying he is right instead of caring about
> other answers.

And now because you have not found use in Lisp, which I still believe
must exist, or could exist in some early Lisp, all what you are left
is to go with the mob and participate in profanities.

I did not ask neither force you, or hired you, to give me X number of
mathematical theories.

I have asked how is that useful in Lisp. Because I can also make a
function like (defun i-like-it () (message "i-like-it")) and claim
that it is alright to result with "I like it" because I like
it. However, that does not have practical use for people. And that is
the foundation of my question, no matter how much Lisp authors liked
mathematics.

You participate voluntary in conversation. It is not employment. You
do not need to participate in any conversation. 

I am not waiting for anybody to tell me how I am wrong, or right.

I want to understand what was meant with making (*) ➜ 1 in the first
place.

So far I can only see that set theory is included because it exists,
and because somebody liked it, or was thinking it should be so.

I cannot see the practical use of it.

You could as well tell "I do not know any practical use of it", and
leave out of conversation.

-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/