[OT] Is the D(n) PL discovery or invention?

[Justin Johansson]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> My view on it:
> 
> - Math *concepts* are debatably either invention or discovery.
> 
> - Math *notation* is ostensibly a creation. Although, whether or not all 
> "creation" is really nothing more than "discovery" in disguise is a question 
> philosphers could probably spend centuries discussing and getting nowhere 
> on.
> 
> - Specific programming languages, such as D, are in the same category as 
> math *notation*. Just like math notation, they are *arbitrary* 
> representations of abstract ideas.
> 
> - The abstract ideas that programming languages represent (ex: functions, 
> expressions, metaprogramming, etc.) are debatably either invention or 
> discovery in the same way as math *concepts*. In fact, most, if not all of 
> them, are generally considered to *be* mathematical concepts.
> 
> - Whether math *concepts* and programming *concepts* are invention or 
> discovery: I suspect that question is really just thinking about it the 
> wrong way. Our categorizational-loving minds have created (or discovered) 
> the categories of "invention" and "discovery". Math (concepts) may merely be 
> evidence that those categories, like many human-created (or discovered) 
> categories (for example, biology's binomial nomenclature) are imperfect 
> classifications that do not always bisect their domains into clear "in" and 
> "out" sections.

A lot of what you say I've read elsewhere before but not this bit
"I suspect that question is really just thinking about it the
wrong way.  Our categorizational-loving minds have created (or
discovered) the categories of "invention" and "discovery"."

Those are really thought provoking statements that really turn
the question on its head. :-)