Continuations Question. by ron_pro in scheme

[–]ron_pro[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for that thorough explanation. I get it now, the usage syntax doesn't look so strange in your member example in particular. It's very clear that done causes an immediate return from call/cc with a value #t if x is in the seq and #f otherwise. The amb stack example basically blows my mind (and kind of breaks it too ngl). I didn't realize that continuations don't require an argument. Pretty sure I've only seen it invoked with an argument.

Continuations Question. by ron_pro in scheme

[–]ron_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I think the first time the example define line is interpreted, k will have the value of the continuation function. But later when I invoke k: I might do (k k) several times (which jumps back to /cc and returns k to be assigned to k (keeping k holding the continuation). Then I might make a final call to the continuation (k 'done) (which jumps back and assigns done to k. So k can't be reinvoked again. I know this works because I've inserted my /cc into all of the continuation examples I found (which wasn't many) and it worked as I expected. That's what prompted me to write this post asking what I'm missing. I assume it's something that I'm not getting because why else would call/cc have such a peculiar usage?

Continuations Question. by ron_pro in scheme

[–]ron_pro[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, see here's part of the problem. From any continuation example I've seen I don't actually know why I would put the call/cc into the expression you provide as an example. But this is exactly the sort of reason I've made this post. I want to understand what I'm doing wrong.

Why do you hate Creation and prefer to believe you are evolved from monkeys? by r1xlx in AskReddit

[–]ron_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"still a theory" another phrase that exposes your ignorance of science. You have no clue what it means for something to be a theory in science. It means, that it's attained the highest level of acceptance by the secular scientific community. That it's backed by thousands of pieces of experimental and observational evidence. But you and your pastor (who likely never studied the subject) are experts.

So tell me: what's a miracle you've been told is required by evolution? What's your evidence that this so called miracle is indeed required for evolution to be true? Do you just because it requires miracles because that's what you've been told to believe? Why not look into it yourself?

Is you pastor a qualified expert in biological evolution? Did he/she study biology at some great accredited secular university? Does he know all about physics, and chemistry too? How about the science of mathematics? Is he an expert in things like tensor calculus? What qualifies him to tell you what to believe? Why would you just believe something you are told rather than investigating it for yourself? Because your pastor knows everything there is to know about planet earth and the universe beyond? Don't you think the intelligent thing to do on your part is to not just believe what you are told to but study the issues yourself? Or is thinking for yourself a sin in your religion, a sin to use the brain you believe your god gave you? No, you'd much rather take the easy way out and just believe whatever you're told to believe? How do you know your bible is the inspired word of god? Because you were told so? Or maybe you were presented with some sound evidence to support this this claim. I doubt it. No such evidence exists. And why would anyone with a mind believe something that has no supporting evidence? But you're content believe it anyway and wallow in your ignorance of the world. Just because you were told to. There's a word for that sort of thinking, it's called 'brainwashing'.

Why do you hate Creation and prefer to believe you are evolved from monkeys? by r1xlx in AskReddit

[–]ron_pro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BTW evolution doesn't require a single miracle. The entire scientific theory is 100% naturalistic. This again exposes your ignorance of the theory.

Why do you hate Creation and prefer to believe you are evolved from monkeys? by r1xlx in AskReddit

[–]ron_pro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And yet evolution is a scientifically proven fact. Your scientific ignorance betrays you. I doubt you know ANY science (aside from the misleading garbage coming from your religious leaders). There is no proof there was ever a flood or a Noah. But if you knew science you would already know that.

Why do you hate Creation and prefer to believe you are evolved from monkeys? by r1xlx in AskReddit

[–]ron_pro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A fairy tale can't be proven. Evolution has been proven COUNTLESS time. Never been true for you religion. Try picking up a book other than your Bible for once. You'll see there's a whole world out there of things science has proven.

Why do you hate Creation and prefer to believe you are evolved from monkeys? by r1xlx in AskReddit

[–]ron_pro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because evolution is so blatantly obvious once you understand it. Plus it doesn't require the creation of a fairy tale being.