# [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

Mark Janssen dreamingforward at gmail.com
Sat Apr 20 04:36:06 EDT 2013

```> I suggest you read more on sentential logic (which can be called "Zero-Order
> Logic", and which I think is what you mean by 'Boolean/Binary/Digital
> Logic')

While interesting (and thank you for the terms), I think I by Boolean
Logic, something different is meant.   In fact, perhaps we have hit
upon the exact point where the confusion lies.

The logic I'm talking about does not come out of philosophy like the
predicate calculii -- and it is not sentential *at all*.  I'm going to
refer to that with the more Greek spelling of "logik".

Boolean logic, is distinguished with, I'll claim, an entirely
different lexicon.  Now, this word set can be readily mapped to that
used in predicate calculus, but this ease is also the cause of the
confusion -- they are two different realms.

The primary difference in language to note is this one (put in
analogical form with predicate logic first):  true:false::1:0.  That
seems simple, but from there two completely different maths have been
made which are orthogonal to each other.

With the former, one never adds truth values together, for example,
but with the latter, that is about all you do.  Further, one never
negates the "true" to get "false" in sentential logic, but with
boolean logic, it is done routinely.  Boolean logic is often done in a
parallel fashion, hence one hears of 32-bit adders, but you would
never hear or conceive of such in predicate calculus.   The machines
that people actually program on are almost entirely based on boolean
logic.  (LISP machines a possible exception?)

Boolean logic is distinguished by input and output.  In between these
two there is the predictable, consistent flow of logic.  Predicate
calculus seems to me to be distinguished by propositions and (and what
seems to me to be) human evaluation.  The mapping at these high-levels
isn't clear at all and I've only seen it performed in Prolog.  ....I
should really take a look at the underlying code of a Prolog
interpreter to see how it maps onto the binary hardware, but I suspect
it is some the deep, dark magic that I'm not sure I should toy with.

Cordially,

Mark Janssen
Tacoma, Washington

> PS: Please could you take off my email address 'moezadel at live.com' from the
> list of recipients of your emails to the types list. Otherwise I get
> duplicate emails (because I am already a member of the types list). Thanks.

My sincerest apologies.  Will give more attention to the matter...
```

More information about the Types-list mailing list